cowen70
-
Posts
952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by cowen70
-
-
Then why the trouble with the white peace?
I believe the trouble is with the supposed moral outrage not the white peace.
Well, I thought that alliances involved in wars get a say in peace terms? Or do they have to tow the line? What various hegemony alliances have received white peace due to TOP?See above.
No, good sir, and this is where I get annoyed. You and your ilk started tearing Karma apart. Your people started attacking Karma alliances in public, despite a private location to do so. Your friends are marching around as though they are Hegemony incarnate, dare any alliance or member challenge their desire. You, and the rest like you, cannot simply "forget" when you have thrown the first stones. There is a distinct different between attacking "coalition mates" for little reason and declaring a lack of cooperation as a cause for exiting war. Various members of CnG, SF, Chestnut, and others hold the SOLE responsibility for initiating the hate fest that has taken place on these boards. You cannot sit here and plead for unity when you are causing the disunity. You cannot state a war is ongoing and demand cooperation when you do the opposite.Most of all, good sir, you cannot dare interpret what Heracles said as a threat of ZI when your OWN foreign affairs leader stated that opinions being voiced will "do no good for your alliances in the future". Not once, no sir, multiple times. I am absolutely tired of the double standard here. You folks threw the first stones, and continue to throw them in public for little reason. You cannot complain and cry "foul" when those stones are thrown back with good cause and in retaliation.
I fear for this new world, as it appears we've installed the blood thirsty, power hungry trolls into a position of power.
Who made the OP?
I'm not really involved but most of your statements didn't seem to have a whole lot to do with what the people who are posting substantive cases for hypocricy are saying.
-
/me senses shameless recruitment
You joking?
Not often I look at Youwish's posts and think they are good but that seemed like a genuine (and very nice) post not a lame recruitment attempt.
-
You're making the counterargument.
How did the FAN-NPO war end?
FAN would have died had NPO not committed all those other actions that led to this war. The arguement that NPO could face eternal war if it continues being a hippy does not mean that those who would do that entirely karma like action would end up in the same position as NPO as that would presume that they too would commit to all those other actions, that all those other variables were to fall into place. I think that is assuming a bit much, clairvoyance isn't real.
-
did NPO offer adequate proof enough to persuade FAN to come out of peace mode and fight?
No they merely said they'd discuss peace after a proper bit of war. That they wouldn't discuss it until a proper fight had been had.
So its the old switcheroo, delicious.
-
You do realize that for awhile i viewed NPO as a blood brother do you not? Up until the whole Ivan/Moo incident, i was never against NPO. As for personal attacks, you started on me simply because i choose to stick with my alliance rather than go on ineffectual one man crusades. i simply turned it around on you. so if it is so poor, then why do you insist on doin the same to me? I never saw you crusading against NPO or anyone else during the past three years except for railing on the forums.
This war is not the first time I've fought against them. I was against them in the Legion war. Again there is nothing here to impugn me on try as you might. Things I talk about are generally things I do. No doubt I'm human and I make mistakes but I'm not worried about someone pointing them out, just you haven't picked any yet.
so if you do not wish the same charges levied against you, do not levy them against me.and again, i ask you to point out where i stated i will be leading this attack or even participating. seems to me i posted that they should just be attacked and that was mainly due to the whining in this thread that has been done over their attack on California. other than posting to you, i posted twice in this thread. once to show my distaste at PC and then the other that you responded to.
Well lobby that an AA should be attacked and you'll be seen as a strong advocate of it and attract a strong response. I certainly didn't suggest that you had stated you would be leading attacks on PC if you look back on my posts and what was actually said. I said maybe you should... and yes that is a line NPO used to use and one that people eventually followed to wonderful success. It seems like it works, people should join AA's and work towards establishing their desired goals and fulfilling their moral convictions on Planet Bob or at least accepting subjectivity or relativity and stop shouting them down on the boards. Either way it behooves people to act not talk or we'll end up in the mess we were when NPO had power.
-
I was in Polaris for over 2 years except a short stint as a Paragon Ascendant. After the war, i moved to Gremlins where i have been since Nov. As for my convictions while in Polaris, ask any former gov while i was there, i tended to push my convictions fairly hard even as a rank and file and did not usually bother with radio silences and instead posted anyways.
As a Gre, i tend to do the exact same. See unlike you, i would rather push the alliance i am in to be more in tune with my convictions (and yes, this is much harder than just alliance hopping i know.) and while i may not succeed that much, what little i change is for the better. so you can just alliance hop all you want, i will continue to stick with the alliance i am in and attempt to change it more from within. Though with Gremlins, they are pretty much in tune with my convictions anyways.
i am not attacking anything other than you moaning about TPF and you doing nothing else but moaning. i never once mentioned you attacking PC.
I don't alliance hop, that stigma can be saved for those people who would jump arbitrarily for no reason. My AA's have been transitory to a certain extent yet up until defcons disbandment it was an evolution from one main core group transiting to another then merging and forming an even larger core stable group and DefCon was good, really good place to be. Even still the group still holds, we still hold a good friendship and will one day end up in the same AA again of that I have no doubt.
Once again I urge you pick on the nose, its at least firmer ground than your poor personal attacks.
As for changing policy, I don't imagine you'll have to much to do in Gramlins (they seem predisposed to rationality) but it took some rather major events to swing Polaris from the NPO blood brother, and it certainly wasn't your urging. Should I add ineffectual to the list of suspect character assasinations I seem to be building?
Though in truth I don't truly believe any of them, but certainly the idea that PC should be attacked raises my hackles for something so insignificant but it seems PC is the AA people love to hate and while lots of people (like TPF) love to talk of attacking them few do. And not because they are particularly large or well connected, they don't actually desire to be so from what I know of them. All I know is I respect them for their blunt no nonesense talk and consistency and anyone can add my meagre NS to the opposition of those that go against them and with that sir I wish you peace as I shall impugn you no longer.
-
i looked at alliance seniority.
as for anything else, i have railed against much. As a Polar i railed against TPF rolling NoV. ask Slayer. and that is while Polaris gave support for that war as allies of TPF. I have railed against other stuff. my loyalties though lie with the alliance i am in. i do not just go off on a whim to fight an ineffective one man war against stupidity. that would accomplish nothing.
so for you to state that i should do just this while you sit there and preach glory unto me, is ridiculous and shows just how hypocritical you are.
if you are oh so upset over the fact that TPF "forced" defcon to disband, then get off your $@! and attack them. show how "true" your convictions are or stop trying to tell me to do something you, yourself refuse to do.
Indeed you did
I just realised I am in fact kicking around 3 years old.You might not go off a whim but you certainly don't act much to move towards your alleigances or if you do, you do it so slowly as to make it worthless. A less cynical person might suggest that you are just migrating with the winds of change. I will merely hint that it has suggestions of it. If your convictions don't suit the AA your in and it is the case that you stick with them despite it then I apologise, you just don't believe in what you espouse so freely strongly enough to be moved by it. I'm not sure which is the more damning conviction.
As for my history I have always seeked to move in the direction which my convictions take me. My affiliation with TPF was accidental in happenstance that I struck such a strong bond with DC particularly ZZZ that I merged into an AA that was allied with TPF. We all agreed that honour demanded that since we knew a war was coming up we would fight for them but it wasn't where we wanted to be and we'd damn well shift when it was honourable to do so.
As for attacking PC I have just finished two wars with them and will pursue more at my leisure, as well as having fought god knows how many wars with their protectorates nations who declared on me and who I declared on.
Seriously if your looking to attack integrity your barking up the wrong tree, I suggest picking on my looks. I have a big nose and I'm slightly overweight.
-
Funny, for FAN i was all for it (the first time around) considering i was in Polaris and FAN betrayed Polaris. As for my threatening PC, i truly don't care about them. point in that post where i stated i would personally attack them. I am just tired of reading page after page of whining. so i stated simply, get some alliances together and hit PC.
as for the courage of my convictions please. I stuck with Polaris in GPW as a new nation. I went back and fought with Polaris during SPW. you know nothing of me or my convictions so do not speak of that which you know little.
as for hoarding pixels, i am almost a 3 year old nation with around 3300 infra and 1650 tech. you have a 57 day old nation almost as strong as me so do kindly piss off when it comes to hoarding pixels.
also, my alliance is at war and my convictions are to do as i am ordered by my alliance. Nor does my alliance allow raiding of alliances.
so do not call me out when you know so little about me cowen.
My nation is a fair bit older than that you obviously looked at the wrong nation. I'm 1049 days old
edit: And also a fair bit weaker...having looked at my nation after so many nukes and GA'sI know you talk the talk but you have acted in AA's that have brought about the thing which you now fight against in your current AA. You then target PC for fighting against TPF and targeting protectorates a fairly minor crime in comparison to the things you have participated in, either directly or through support.
So you now have yet another position dictated by your AA where you will rail against a new AA. You make a good poster boy, and most definitely a more eloquent one than me as I've noted and admired your debating skills. I just don't admire your consistency.
-
I bring it up because he uses some foolish misconception of those events to justify any and all actions against TPF. When he clearly has no idea of the situation. Your argument is flawed on several factors if you are trying to be an advocate of any sort of rule of law community.
I agree in total war situations everyone would be a target, but I don't think we've digressed that far as a community.
Our allies that have surrendered have said they will help us out of bill lock when this is over, should PC attack and raid them? Would that be a valid CB? By your argument they would. How about their allies allies? There is no end to whom you need to kill until you kill everyone remotely related just to make sure.
The second issue in you argument is signing any number of protectorates is fool hardy because you can't protect them. Theoretically there is no alliance that could ever protect even one alliance because they could be curbstomped by someone. Using that as justification to mass raid an 18 person alliance speaks quite abit on your view of the world. Either you support mass raiding of alliances that are vulnerable only because of treaty weakness, or you hold a grudge on tpf you want to rub in.
I didn't bring anything up I merely said they had supported Q by aligning themselves with you and that is true and I view that as valid (until people surrender, its a weak arguement to assume that is not a qualifying factor)
I did not bring up anything about my past actions I was discussing AA's, you brought me up, and I'm happy to continue that despite the fact that its not relevant.
-
We didn't force anyone to disband, we didn't threaten, infact we told zoom we would not allow you to be attacked... all that would seem to disprove your first point, which would also disprove the other point you make that we didn't help or try to protect DC... The rest of your post is too confusing to address.
All I did was quit but I always supported defcon and its decision to support TPF in the war but I did certainly urge us to find alternative treaties and drop TPF like a stone after. I made it no secret that I despised Q I betrayed no one and was nothing but honest in my opinions including posts on the OWF in which I did not hide my opinion.
And yes I sought information about the coming war since TPF would give us none, but I did so with the full knowledge and disclosere of others, merely trying to gain information others weren't willing to impart depsite holding it.
In other words if TPF wanted to use as meatshields I wanted to know when it would occur so I could prepare us, you didn't like it. Baaw!
-
Oh indeed I made a point he didn't like so he decided to bring up defcon which have nothing to do with this.
I'm okay with that, we can either sideline it here or create a new thread. I'm happy to drag TPF through the mud in whichever fashion he chooses.
-
Your hate for people that did nothing to you led to your betrayal of an alliance you were gov in, I would expect no less a diatribe from you.
You mean you forcibly disbanded us because we wanted more information and you weren't willing to give it.
All I did was quit because I expected to be ZI'd by you even though it was clear that we were going to honour our treaty obligations though I was certainly eager to find more honourable ones after obligations had been met since i had nothing but loathing for TPF's tactics.
I for one have never aired my distaste for TPF over these actions but since you have yes TPF are despicable and we all thought it which is why DC merged into TOOL and not TPF despite the fact that you were the ex protectorates.
TOOL have honour TPF do not. Yes we despised you but yes we were going to help protect you despite feeling utterly betrayed even if your past actions left a bad taste in our mouth. Being a protector does not give you a carte blanche for all actions and you never protected my AA, only one I merged into.
Edit: I know exactly what AA he was in which is what makes his comments amusing.
-
in all honesty, after this war is done, how about a few (or more) raiding alliances get together and decide to "raid" PC?
Funny you weren't threatening and declaring on NPO not so long ago and you weren't threatening NpO or other nations for heinous actions. For actions against FAN you didn't declare war. I know you were present during these actions.
Perhaps if you do declare war against PC you will finally prove you have the courage of your convictions. I urge you to do it since it would be a victory for you personally no matter what occurs afterwards. It will certainly prove your not secretly hoarding pixels while posting rhetoric on the boards.
-
Hang on............is this thread the biggest bag of fail ever?
They are a protectorate of TPF, PC went to war with TPF and its logical to hit anyone and everyone who is likely to back them up until the point they surrender.
If they don't like it they shouldn't be supporting or allying including getting protected by people with the bullying tactics of Q. I'm sure they won't be forced to disband or pay tens of thousands of tech or get a viceroy yet they certainly aligned themselves with an AA who have supported these actions.
I'm playing the worlds smallest violin.
-
My comrade PA is capable of respecting the opposition, he just gets riled up easily (and he'll be the first to admit it).
We at IRON are very glad that most of our allies have gotten off relatively scot-free. I don't feel like I have too many new things to add to this conversation, except that the political climate has changed permanently. If anyone feels like they must punish alliances to teach them to accept the reality of our new world, they are mistaken. I PROMISE you that IRON has personally learned a great deal in this affair, and we are rapidly learning what alliances are deserving of our friendship.
The last AA you decided was worthy of your friendship was NPO so your judgement is surely trustworthy!
I don't get how NPO is evil, immoral or whatever other buzz word you want to use but the fashion has developed to assume that the people who supported ''insert buzzword for morally objectionable Bob action'' are innocent.
If IRON had any sense it would create a new reign of terror and run every act of terror through a proxy called N(insert random diget)O and then claim innocence and no doubt the new Karma coalition would forgive them as well
Could happen! -
Probably less than the 600 million we had to pay out a year and a half ago and the 82k tech we had to pay out 8 months ago.
If we ignore the crazy anti karma propaganda and take it to mean what goes around comes around then MK should be demanding something proportional to their AA size to duplicate the reps you were forced to pay out.
If 82k tech was x% of your total tech then the people who took it should pay x% of their total tech, similarly with the money though since no one knows war chest sizes I'm sure another formula could be worked out.
I sincerely hope that happens, though I don't think forced wonder dismissals etc are worth it. Considering how fast soldiers can be bought its a bit meaningless keeping them artificially low (since if they wanted to go to war they could buy them all in one day)
-
What? The OP of this thread is nothing but a troll. It's full of lies and half-truths about the red sphere.
lol
Didn't you also follow this guy around in his DoE as well?
Have you taken up the post of protector of the red sphere and the NPO, I mean to be fair they need all the help they can get/
-
Sigh.
Evolution of behaviours and interactions happen naturally. Try and force them or whine them into existance and see what happens. I don't see the problem, an old hatred was fostered mutually and one side ended up losing. Its no big deal its just stuff.
-
If there was a vote stating the OP was useless at making topics would you a. ridicule him or b. ridicule him.
Needs more controversy!
-
Nobody is insulting them because they are in peace mode. They are being insulted because they are hypocrites because they are in peace mode. There is a difference. As I've stated, too many times did they insult people for using peace mode, and now they are using it. I don't know about you, but that speaks loudly to me about their hypocrisy.
Yes that is a most worthy but most frequently misunderstood point.
-
Because we all know how well Aut's last venture went
Goodluck Stig, I think you'll do it this time I really do. I'll be pleased to see your success.
-
Considering the contents of the communications received since the quickly-executed negotiations to the effect of "We did what?" I received the impression that internal communications were an issue. I absolutely agree that all decisions of that magnitude should be discussed amongst the responsible government and they should have been in this instance. It didn't happen. It's something to avoid in the future. (I think we're actually agreeing on something here)
The negotiations began and ended within about an hour and you weren't there for them hence my not holding you responsible for the decisions made. Simply put, because you weren't your personal opinion simply could not be taken into account. Frankly, I wish more voices could have been present but circumstances clearly did not allow for it. I've been well aware that the constitution of The Forsaken Ones does not allow for a dictatorial execution of power and yet one person, your Emperor no less, took it upon himself to lead the negotiations and conclude them on behalf of your alliance. Should you be upset with this you should take it up with your own government. (We're agreeing that your not being there wasn't a good thing
)And I could indicate the same concerning the past of Poison Clan and your associations with them. I simply don't considering that The Forsaken Ones is a sovereign alliance with an independent government which should be held responsible for its own actions and no one else's. I know the standard in the Cyberverse is to hold alliances responsible for the actions of their friends - I simply do not do so. To do otherwise breeds ignorance and an inescapable cycle of passed blame which makes peace and cooperation impossible in the long term.
I think we're agreeing on a lot more stuff here than you think
.Well we do agree on a little more but I am troubled by the seeming never ending casting of negativity on TFO for what was a relatively painless affair that ended in reasonable reperations, obviously would have went smoother if we had waited for a full representation of our government but for all the negotiations started badly they did not end badly. There was a time when some AA's would have demanded wonders be destroyed and reperations would not even remotely be paid for and that was that, take it or become FAN. Honestly if a rough and bumpy negotiation is the worst crime TFO has ever committed then we're way ahead of a vast proportion of CN and we'll only improve from there.
As for Poison Clan I was a member there for some time before TFO, I am perfectly happy with their actions and quite knowledgable of their government, having known one of them a long time in CN and getting to know the rest of the upper government during and after my stay there I can comfortably say I am happy with their direction and confident that I can support their actions. I have actually been on the side where I was allied to an AA that I didn't support and it left me feeling very uncomfortable. If philosophically you differ from your allies in a big way then I don't see how that can make for a good military or even diplomatic relationship.
If I had to give my opinion of MDP's I again find myself in agreement with PC. One of the defining opinions I came across in my time there was the fewer MDP's the better. I don't think its easy to align yourself comfortably with a lot of AA's and retain your integrity, and those few that you do sign should be very close to your ideology.
-
Internal alliance communication, clarity of war aims and conduct during negotiations judging by my experience thus far.
It was taken care of was it not and within the same day? That is pretty quick considering some negotiations can last days and yes people can get called away, I believe it happened with NPO just recently due to some external issues that interrupted communication.
Your personal opinions on the matter never came into play since you were not leading the negotiations for The Forsaken Ones nor were you making the decisions.Indeed they do matter as the alliance is ran in part by me as well as other members like Jens, ditka and THD. I was absent during the beginning of the negotiations which is when a problem occurred but it was resolved quickly was it not? I do believe the negotiations finished that same session. We are not an alliance ran by a singular person, the focal head of power runs the AA in consultation with the rest of gov not inspite of them.
Guilt by association is a very slick slope to wander onto - as for your implication that the Initiative has somehow directly supported the New Pacific Order and other alliances known for exacting harsh terms and excessive reparations I would call on you to provide examples of wars after October 12, 2008 (the date the Initiative came into being) when it was involved in a conflict which resulted in harsh reparations being demanded.You provide military support to one of the AA's who has extorted people in the past. If you do not support their actions and philosophy then why are you allied to them. Surely you consider the actions of the people you ally yourselves to when you sit down and discuss treaties? Knowing what they have done in the past and what they are likely to do in the future based on that. Or did you slap on a pair of blinkers hold your hands over your ears and shout ''lalalalalalalala'' when people talk about the hegemony's past actions (that isn't just NPO, that is TPF as well)?
An excellent stance to take.One small slice of agreement then between us.
-
As Shurukian pointed out, it comes down to simple combat effectiveness. There was zero point in the Initiative remaining in the fight to simply provide defensive slots for RAD to occupy and that was that. I don't believe at any point I've sat back and laughed at the combat abilities of RAD (though I've certainly questioned your methodology of declaring wars). By saying "Hey, if you don't surrender before X time RAD will be declaring war" there's an implicit threat there. It's called the carrot-and-stick method. It simply comes down to whether or not you believe that the information given about RAD's intentions was truly meant as a kind heads-up or whether it was meant in a less-than-polite manner.
Here are the two options that were given:
1. Accept surrender terms being dictated by a person who began by making an unreasonable demand and would not take advice or redirection from others present on that side of the table (persons from two other alliances and a Karma mediator)
-or-
2. Receive attacks from three alliances (RAD, Poison Clan and Lone Star Republic) including nuclear bombardment on nations unable to resist the strikes with no reasonable expectation on the part of the Initiative for a change of circumstances for the better (basically, just taking damage for the hell of it with no gain and no change to the reparations being asked for)
Given those options, the leadership of the Initiative made the better choice as I see it. Certainly, the personal complaints being lodged by members of this alliance can be seen as "whining" and if that's how they are going to be perceived I won't argue the point. Did we have to surrender? No, there was no reasonable way for any of the alliances fighting us to take direct control of our nations and force the acceptance of terms (OOC: hijack our accounts). Would it have been irresponsible for the Initiative's leadership to not make the choice we did? I think so. I certainly have my pride but I'm not willing to put it ahead of those persons who have entrusted the well-being of their nations to myself and, more importantly, the Empress.
Does that mean people should be thrilled about having to pay reparations? I don't think so. Certainly members of other alliances, when faced with what they saw as uneven reparations demands, have publicly expressed their displeasure with them (see: Athens, Mushroom Kingdom, GATO, FAN, etc.). People are going to do so here as well and I'll support their alliance-given right to free speech no matter what. Should the day come when RAD or any other alliance finds itself in a position of having been unfairly treated as they see it (I actually never want to see this happen, believe it or not) you'll find me there supporting your rights as well. And yes, you can hold me to that.
As I said before in this line of discussion, I'll be taking note of the performance and conduct of The Forsaken Ones on this new front. They've chosen to make a new effort in this war and I'm more than willing to reserve judgment on their future conduct as the future is not set in stone and people can learn. When all is said and done we'll see how things go.
You had a problem with one person briefly within the negotiations, not with me or the other people in TFO so I wonder exactly what it is you think I need to learn? I don't have problems with people in negotiations. I didn't particularly feel the same kind of idealistic and fanatical fervour others do around white peace and I don't apologise for that. TFO faced superior numbers and asked for a reasonable amount of reperations that does not even remotely bear comparison to the extortion that was common under the hegemony (something which TSI has indirectly supported through affiliation and military support of a Q alliance).
Considering our limited involvement in the Avalon war I certainly don't think reperations will be asked for.
I just realised I am in fact kicking around 3 years old.
edit: And also a fair bit weaker...having looked at my nation after so many nukes and GA's
Could happen!
.
Joint Announcement from The Sweet Oblivion and The Order of the Paradox
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted · Edited by cowen70
They can do what they like in regards to giving out peace. It is when they make an attack (veiled or blatent) on those who make reperations a condition.
As for the supposed goals of Karma, as far as I am aware its proportionality not white peace everywhere with fluffy bunnies and pink bows.
More information stating their displeasure at the other alliances. Wholly unneccessary but their choice, giving reasonable motives for a verbal retaliation from those involved.