Jump to content

Johnny Apocalypse

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,139

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Johnny Apocalypse

  3. This Week in the Network

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1303348740' post='2695065']
    I was refraining from making judgement on their chosen course of action and instead chose to comment on the counter point you presented with how it leaves certain aspects open to interpretation depending upon the point of view prefered by the reader.
    [/quote]

    Apologies, I was just speculating why they may decide to carry on doing tech deals despite being a culpable party in the eyes of CoJ. That and there's only so far I can take the open to interpretation argument before I end up saying "Well, that's like, your opinion man"

    [quote]
    I'm not the [url=http://flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/archivist.htm]archivist[/url] type so won't be doing that. That said if you're holding us to standards you make effort to hold yourself to then I thank you for that modicum of respect for us. [b]Unfortunately my time here and elsewhere has severely diminished my hope in many others having that same level of integrity so am stuck with the kind of perspective which goes "I'll believe it when I see it."[/b]
    [/quote]

    You and me both.

  6. War Propaganda

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1302564520' post='2688861']
    Anyone here remember how Roq wanted Archon to write their declaration of war because he had a way of writing announcements? Well, I did:
    [img]http://i.imgur.com/jAN5Q.png[/img]
    Inspired by this: http://i.imgur.com/CNwy9.jpg
    [/quote]

    I have to admit, this one made me laugh.

  9. Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303337415' post='2694900']
    Actually, the New Pacific Order has invested quite a lot of effort in its dialogue with those we've met on the losing end of a battlefield - with some success along the way.

    I'm not certain if a Pacific capable of doing such is an Alien Concept to [i]you[/i], given the inaccurate caricature of a vengeance driven mob that your grouping often juggles with, or [b]whether you are just using some literary flair[/b] - but it is a false, and tired, characterization.

    Of course, given the enthusiasm with which Doomhouse government members seem to encourage past perpetrators of violence to actively seek to approach parties they might need to make amends towards, perhaps we'll all get a chance to move past such petty blindness.
    [/quote]

    Glad you noticed :v: I know you guys have been making an effort, your comrade was just giving off the wrong impression and was essentially talking bollocks about something which he likely has no real knowledge of.

    It would be nice to move on, whether or not that happens we'll see but I'm not one to hold a grudge as they get stale very quickly.

  10. This Week in the Network

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Hyperbad' timestamp='1303330827' post='2694830']
    The problem with casting aside the fact that tech deals with other alliances may be pursued in order to continued their present growth effectively is it throws into question the motive for their participation and whether it's solely for economic reasons. That isn't to say the one sending the shipments to nations at war are doing so with intent to support said war. In fact I can think of a myriad of other reasons but it's now known by them the effect it's having is to support the war and they become a culpable party to any acts by those they are aiding. So if one wishes to argue what you are then it needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more.[/quote]

    I see your point, however I can also see and understand why TFE may decide to carry on regardless. If it means sacrificing potential growth to assist an alliance its treaty partner is at war with then from a pragmatic point of view for an alliance the size of TFE it would make much more sense to carry on selling tech rather than oblige your requests (and judging by the brilliant performance dating back a few weeks from HoT on TFE's forums I can see why they may not be sympathetic to your plight)

    [quote]
    In a case like this whether I knew anything of the alliance approaching me would be of no consequence. My decision isn't to be based on personal likes or dislikes but on information surrounding the conflict. After all even the deplorable types may be victimized. The relevant matter would merely be how the war came to be which would be all encompassing of the originating incident, talks and execution. I would have to be convinced that the person requesting a cessation of trade is the victim of aggression or otherwise fighting it. Failing that - or done with a dishonest argument - would see trade continued or resumed. I don't really give a crap about tradition personally and I'd be lying if I said I would under any and every circumstance suspend a tech deal with another party who was at war. On the other hand I myself wouldn't ask someone to stop under circumstances where I would be unwilling to. In this I recognize there are times where my opponents may be swarmed with aid packates giving them a substantial edge on me in war but that's something I can live with if it means peace of mind.

    Of course I've also been here on and off for nearly five years and when I wasn't here was updated semi-frequently on the flow of politics so have a developed view of the world as opposed to those who are still new to it and absorbing things. Under those cirucmstances I can't rightly say how I would respond.
    [/quote]

    Fair enough, I can't really argue with that and it'd be entirely futile to do so.

    [quote]
    What is of concern to me is with whether what was considered a norm is being over turned here permanently or only because it's of benefit to the winning party. Cause for my concern over it is over a personal desire to resist submitting to double standards. Unfortunately we won't discover which it is until tested multiple times down the road under differing circumstances. In the mean time images are reparable so if there turns out to be no double standard then prove it through attitude and behavior via consistency.
    [/quote]

    If your side was participating in tech deals right now I personally would have no issue with it and not just because you'd be in war mode. The reason I wouldn't have an issue with it is because I'd probably do the same thing if I needed to, it would be awfully hypocritical of me to argue against something that I would do myself. I can't speak for everyone else in our coalition regarding tech deals during war but that's my personal take on it and you can hold me to that if you feel it necessary to do so.

  11. Announcement from The Order of the Paradox

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303329090' post='2694807']
    Competence? Hardly unique. A lot of competent alliance out there. I doubt you will sign a treaty with all of them.

    MK and TOP is a treaty to pacify a threat from each other. NPO and Legion treaty is not base on that.
    [/quote]


    Speaking as someone previously in the Mushroom Kingdom during the BiPolar war and after, I can safely say that you are wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about. Now; where does your expertise on the Diplomatic relations of TOP-MK come from exactly? What evidence do you have to back up your claim?

  12. This Week in the Network

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303329059' post='2694806']
    If that's true, then I wouldn't have a problem with TFE doing tech deals. However, that would surprise me, since it's a pretty regular thing to try and stop tech deals from going out. If you let tech deals go through, what's to stop me from aiding one of your opponents? I slap on "tech deal 1/3" in the aid text and they're 3M richer (maybe throw in some troops, too ;).


    I'd ask whichever member of my alliance was aiding someone at war to cease since that's not kosher. I certainly wouldn't get all upset and insulted about it.
    [/quote]

    If you threw in 2000 troops I'd have a reason to call you out on it being more than a tech deal :P

  16. This Week in the Network

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Johnny Apocalypse

    [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303302549' post='2694542']
    It's ok, you probably are too new to understand how a tech deal works. Since tech deals benefit both parties, you are providing a benefit to someone at war. It is in the interest of the people fighting the tech recipients to put a stop to those deals - either with appeals to the tradition of pausing tech deals for war or through an outright threat (and even a request to make it right by providing equal aid to the warring party). You got the former from CoJ, so I don't see how you are the wronged party.
    [/quote]

    On the other hand TFE need that money to grow. I'm sure TFE could easily find another alliance to do tech deals with but what if they don't want to? What if they actually like ODN and would prefer to do business with them? I'm pretty sure if CoJ or any other alliance in that coalition started doing tech deals there wouldn't be any outrage coming from our side about it (probably because that would mean they would have to be in war mode :ehm:)

    Also, how would you respond if an alliance which you'd not had any contact with before approached you and asked you to stop your means of obtaining cash from your ally because it's hindering their war efforts and because of "tradition"?

  17. Imperial AcTi Announcement

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1303320249' post='2694716']
    To be quite frank you have no idea what you are talking about. I have condemned this type of rougery before and I will do it again now. All I see is a bunch of war-hungry people taking advantage of an alliance run by the mentally impaired, which is shameful to say the least. I don't see a whole lot of support for this rougery coming from DH/PB at all, so cast your blame elsewhere. TIO isn't even close to the power structure either for that matter.
    [/quote]


    Hurr durr how is that different to what you're doing to NPO?

  19. Thriller Nuclear Policy and Peace Terms Offer

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Johnny Apocalypse

    [quote name='8 Mile' timestamp='1303271290' post='2694252']
    :facepalm: Seriously dude?

    They're trying to prove a point on how terrible of an alliance AcTi is. They are demanding changes to the alliance to make it less "fail" through military force.
    [/quote]

    No.

    Why do we need someone to prove that point for us? I always thought that it was a universal truth that AcTi was a terrible alliance. Why do we need a bunch of deserters to tell AcTi how to be a better alliance and why do AcTi need to be blown up in order to accomplish this?

  22. Thriller

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Johnny Apocalypse

    [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1303258351' post='2694046']
    lol, check my war screen bro, I'm fighting an NPO right now after getting most of my infra blown away and half my tech.

    Acti was picked for whatever reason, I dunno, they don't come to me and ask my permission before they do things, but I bet it was to have some fun. Sure Acti was no threat, nor was Acti positioning itself to get involved against current combatants or their allies like NPO was. But Acti vs Thriller should be interesting, and at the very least serve a wakeup call to get them to get their act together.

    I have no moral issue with this either, simply because it is a 1 on 1 with comparavely sized alliances with similar strength levels, and it was an up declare, meaning the smaller alliance declared on a bigger one. Acti needs to do what GOONS did and roll the smaller alliances hitting them, or at the very least suck it up and stop whining because this war has an end date pre set by Thriller, they have no intentions of making this a long drawn out affair.
    [/quote]


    Oh, that inb4 wasn't directed at you :P I've had a few people tell me that I couldn't possibly comment on this because I'm in Doomhosue and that means I'm an awful awful person along with other bad arguments.

    To be honest, I agree with you. I just don't like all the false numbers being thrown around as if they're some sort of justification. Plus this is the first time in a while that we've had a thread that doesn't revolve around DH/NPO so it's just something fresh I can argue the toss about.

  25. Thriller

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Johnny Apocalypse

    [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1303257337' post='2694020']
    That can hardly be the fault of Thriller though.
    [/quote]

    I'm not saying it is. What I'm saying is that Thriller knew that AcTi weren't in a fit state to fight a war but are declaring rather loudly that this isn't the case because of "numbers". They're exaggerating the potential of these 45 nations because they know that when people see 17 vs. 45 everyone will assume that the alliance with the most members has the upperhand before looking at the actual statistics behind each group. It would appear that they were also aware of AcTi warchests before declaring so they knew they had the advantage despite having fewer nations to fight with. They're just focusing on giving us misleading figures to give off the impression that AcTi has the upper hand.

    I don't have a moral issue with this by the way, I'm quite happy for people to declare on other people for whatever reason, but if you're going to do that, pick a target that's capable of putting up a fight. Watching other people shoot fish in a barrel can only be entertaining for so long.

    inb4: "but you can't talk, NPO weren't able to put up a fight for they are like a helpless puppy without legs or teeth"

×
×
  • Create New...