WorldConqueror

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1304222636' post='2702929'] It's more about the quote and the history behind the quote (like the subsequent failure of the operation) than the person speaking it and his ideology. [/quote] I don't think DH was expecting NPO to collapse after the initial blitz, either.

GOONS baby, why you gotta be like this?

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1304203381' post='2702758'] I didn't say I had a problem with all animated pips, just the ones that are up. If NpO made an animated version of their bird similar to the one they have used in past announcements, I wouldn't have a problem with it (I would actually probably prefer it to the one they have now, tbh). An animated pip needs to have subtle movements, not the jerking movements of the RIA and R&R pips. [/quote] Exactly this.

[quote name='Newhotness' timestamp='1304099540' post='2702035'] im kinda surprised to see \m/ is still around [/quote] Whoa, sup mang?

Would have been decent without the animation, now it's just ****ing annoying.

[quote name='Ubermeir' timestamp='1304133222' post='2702327'] A as member of an alliance that has rated firsthand, and raised the first alarm against, the ruthless nature of the NPO...WUT! No U. Either accept the terms or fight...that is the advice you give your foes, seems fair this is the quarter you receive. [/quote] **** dude, so many things wrong with this post. First, the person you're responding to is in the Legion, not NPO. Also, you rated NPO firsthand...? What? Also, ODN 'raising the first alarm' was not due to any great insight or strength of character, but rather the result of common ancestry. Also, shouting wut and no u are not good debating tactics. Also, the person you quoted implied he was happy to keep fighting until acceptable terms were offered. Also, I can't remember the Legion giving that advice to their foes, so does that make 'the quarter they are receiving' unfair now? But please, continue to represent ODN in such a stellar fashion.

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1303997995' post='2701101'] Since Haflinger vomited that line about 15-20 posts back. [/quote] Ahh, I see.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1303996691' post='2701087'] I thought the point was supposed to be to rate based on how you feel about them. [OOC]After all, they're posted in the IC forum[/OOC] [/quote] I'm not sure what IC or OOC has to do with whether you rate them based on how you feel about them, or based on things like military and economic prowess. You can do both in an IC or OOC sense. Besides which, people don't always put threads in the right place.

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1303982992' post='2701021'] Say, does your nation export that stuff you're smoking? [/quote] Unfortunately not. It's obviously great stuff but he just won't share. Also, since when does TOP have a grudge against NSO?

Yeah, they're useful to see how alliances are perceived by the wider world. That said, I just realized I rated some completely subjectively, whereas others I based on more objective standards.

Mostly Harmless Alliance 3 Green Protection Agency 4 Fark 6 Independent Republic Of Orange Nations 7 Sparta 2 World Task Force 5 Orange Defense Network 6 The Order Of The Paradox 9 Umbrella 9 New Pacific Order 8 Global Alliance And Treaty Organization 5 Viridian Entente 4 The Democratic Order 5 New Polar Order 8 FOK 7 R&R 4 Mushroom Kingdom 8 Nordreich 6 LoSS 3 Nusantara Elite Warriors 6 The Legion 3 Valhalla 3 Multicolored Cross-X Alliance 3 Nueva Vida 8 The Foreign Division 7 Federation Of Armed Nations 6 NATO 6 Global Order of Darkness 4 The Grand Lodge Of Freemasons 5 Legacy 5 The Templar Knights 5 The Order Of Light 6 Asgaard 7 iFOK 4 Commonwealth Of Sovereign Nations 4 Athens 6 World Federation 6 Goon Order Of Oppression Negligence And Sadism 8 Fellowship Of Elite Allied Republics 7 Global Democratic Alliance 3 Argent 9 Guru Order 6 Christian Coalition Of Countries 4 Ragnarok 5 The Phoenix Federation 8

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1303932535' post='2700511'] Yea they could have done EXACTLY that. They had the chance, and were told if they wanted to they could. They did not. Invicta not only stayed in and backed the above apology term but were willing to back The Legions crazy attempt at massive reps. Invicta are good little followers [/quote] My memory is hazy, and I'm just going off the wiki, which states that Invicta were engaged with SOLID, not STA. Why would they peace with SOLID because they didn't like the terms you were giving STA?

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1303928877' post='2700469'] Ahhh our favorite Rectum member come to spew more diahrea in our direction. Something was done CJ backed off the term so way to bring up history in attempt to kiss some ass. [/quote] Whoa now, no need for that. He gave no indication of who it was. Regardless, be proud of who you are, own your past. [quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303930136' post='2700488'] Instead of what you actually did do, which was to fight a war supporting the people that did it. You sure were a good friend to STA back when they and daddy Pacifica stopped seeing eye to eye... oh wait... no you weren't. [/quote] As I recall, the demands came during the war, not before. What was Invicta supposed to do, leave their front because they didn't like the demands on the Valhalla-STA front?

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303914079' post='2700347'] Sorry, but the only offensive wars I've ever started lasted a week or less, and were never planned to last more than 2 weeks with white peace. Defensive wars, especially defensive wars when you are fighting against people who want to exterminate your alliance, tend to inspire a little bit of a different attitude, and the nature of coalition warfare is such that no one person really gets to decide to what ends a particular defensive war is prosecuted. I'm thinking of Karma and Bipolar in particular here. There is a critical difference in my mind between imposing crushing reps after an offensive war that you win, and imposing crushing reps after a defensive war that you win. To say nothing of denying terms to alliances in the first place and deliberately disbanding them. [/quote] Well, the two wars I can think of that you started with Athens were only so short due to external circumstances. And I agree, wars of extermination do engender different attitudes, but that's really dependent on how the people fighting perceive the war. I seem to remember that C&G saw WotC as a death ride, even though the war against them lasted only a couple of weeks. And I'm sure that others have seen a war as one of extermination when that was not the case at all. I also recognize the problems of coalition warfare, however it is possible to disassociate yourself from terms that you don't agree with, by signing a separate peace if needed, or simply not taking reps, or whatever the case may be. And yes, there is a difference between reps in offensive and defensive wars, but thats changing the argument a bit. As far as I've noticed, the argument against reps usually isn't the actual monetary cost, but the time it will take to pay due to slot limitations, and the fact that it takes people out of the game for so long, and so lengthens the war/peace cycle. And in that sense, taking reps whether from an offensive or defensive war, is functionally exactly the same. You can argue that they deserved to pay reps because they attacked you, fair enough. But the people who took reps after winning an offensive war can also argue that their enemies deserved it. Who deserves what is quite subjective.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1303915462' post='2700357'] Look, TOP. Invicta has an aggressive attitude. You should get DH to peace out with them, hope they learn how to build nations, so they can get up to your range so when you go after the colony you can go after the crony too. [/quote] lol, colony. Watch out everyone, goldie is unleashing his biting witticisms!

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303911432' post='2700330'] You know, the thing is, I never really had a problem with NPO's aggression, I had a problem with your resolution. You didn't just go in and kick ass and take names (with some kind of reason), you stomped on your enemies faces until they died in agony or you couldn't stomp no more. You were like a guy who ends a barfight by shooting your adversary in the head and then tying him to your pickup truck and dragging him down the interstate until he disintegrates. Actually, you guys did a lot of horribly rotten stuff and don't imagine for a minute that you didn't fully earn Karma. I am willing to let bygones be bygones, but let's not pretend like 2006-2009 never happened, shall we? >_> And if you think anyone in CnG in 2009 was ever moralist you might want to think again. Precusor alliances of CnG gave WAPA a kicking for mouthing off shortly before we were rolled by NPO - but that was like a week of war. We were all raiders back then, every one of us. Opposing the kind of game-killing behaviors that NPO indulged in prior to Karma was not moralism, it was just common sense, and moreover it was self-defense. Believe it or not there is a balance between inhuman brutality and simpering moralism, and that balance involves aggression set with a reasonably healthy tone. [/quote] You might not have been moralists, but you certainly used all the arguments to present yourselves as such. I also find it funny that you use the term 'game-killing behaviours' in relation to NPO when you and yours have been engaging in the very same since Karma.

[quote name='Faust Betreur' timestamp='1303909306' post='2700315'] The problem with CN is that there are far, far too many alliances. [img]http://blog.ascentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The_More_You_Know.jpg[/img] [/quote] Does this mean you're willing to disband yours? (not that I don't like SLCB.)

[quote name='Feuersturm' timestamp='1303879423' post='2700181'] Anyone who knows WW2 history should get this. it is referencing a quote by a a certain historical figure. Personally, I found it quite humorous, as it is possible to draw some parallels (perceived threat, surprise attack, ect.). I'll admit, those who do not catch the quote will not understand it as much. [/quote] Eh, I know that quote well, and I didn't like that piece much. Perhaps with a different picture it would have been more effective and/or humorous, but at the moment it just looks like a blatant attempt to link Doomhouse with Nazism, which is ridiculous.

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1303900308' post='2700275'] Indeed they do. Congrats RIA [/quote] Really? I found nothing entertaining in this one.

Congrats Pezstar and Ragashingo, both well deserved promotions.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1303824790' post='2699756'] "Old really fast" in the sense of it's been 2 years since one was written, or "old real fast" in the sense of you took the time to come around but now you also feel the need to act all smug? [/quote] I think he means 'old really fast' in the sense that it's not about NPO and Q any more.

[quote name='bakamitai' timestamp='1303792637' post='2699621'] I'm waiting on my players to give me their info. [/quote] Risky business, that. Makes it hard to build a cohesive team if you aren't creating the players. Plus then you get people complaining about why they weren't played in a certain match, even though they haven't been performing well, and they don't fit into the new formation... Also, CSKA is going down, HoM is taking the cup, etc etc.

I still have ambitions of starting an alliance one day, once I can rope some people into launching with me. Though being at 3ns now isn't going to help that.

Strength and honor? In relation to Sparta? Aha. Haha. Hahahahahaha. That was ironic, right?

[quote name='NOMNOMNOMNOMNOM' timestamp='1302983351' post='2691617'] Aaack stop buying nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuukes It was all fair until you got another 10.5 mil in aid again [/quote] ffs, shut up and fight.