WorldConqueror

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1283238493' post='2436826'] What of those whose main goal IS survival? Not everyone came here figuring they'd be the next Ivan Moldavi. [/quote] No alliance's main goal should be survival, unless they're in a war that they're unlikely to get out of. There has to be some ambition, some drive in the alliance, otherwise they end up sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for somebody else to do something so they can activate a treaty and get involved. People just seem to go 'hey, I'm gunna start an alliance and I'm gunna be leader and it's gunna be really cool!'. Then they DoE, grow a bit, treaty some big alliances, and that's it. Their lack of ambition leads to that alliance contributing nothing to the game, except clogging the treaty web a bit more and providing a chunk of docile usable NS to whoever they're treatied to.

[quote name='Iamrecognized' timestamp='1283207952' post='2436196'] MHA is now up 5.16 over NPO. I expect the reset at update. [/quote] Congratulations on your impressive growth, but we were something like 20 points ahead of second place at our peak.

Respect to Otter for bringing this up. I noticed the Kronos and NEW guys ruining the staggers, and it is incredibly frustrating seeing other alliances giving rogues the opportunity to slip in to peace mode. By attacking and ruining staggers you are aiding the rogue in further damaging his targets by taking a slot a real attacker could have had. It seems quite odd that this is generally accepted among the community, when people sending monetary aid to rogues is frowned upon, and the sender is sometimes attacked. The recent NSO war was started by that very act, aiding a rogue. Yet the same people cheering that war are here saying that what amounts to slot filling is perfectly fine.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282795472' post='2431515'] Pretty odd argument seeing as you're well on your way to that number post-Karma. [/quote] Wow, you guys are having a hard time with numbers in this thread, eh? It's ok, I'll help you out. Just like 0.000000001 does not equal 0, 1.3 does not equal 3. 3 is in fact more than twice 1.3, and in terms of years that is quite a difference. Perhaps when we get to April next year you can start up this argument, when what you are saying is actually true.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1282791944' post='2431464'] As opposed to the Ex-Heg image of a handful of dumb people leading legions of slack-jawed dolts. [/quote] Which explains why it took you almost 3 years to defeat us after the GPW, right?

[quote name='chris8967' timestamp='1282779137' post='2431295'] No problem, hey when I'm wrong I'm wrong. [/quote] In future, you may find it helpful to have some semblance of knowledge about the situation or alliances being discussed, before you decide to jump in and start shouting at people. I know you guys are used to living in a world where the general OWF population swallows anything negative said about Pacifica whole, and come straight back begging for more, but really. Statements like your previous one, displaying an utter lack of knowledge of current events, history, or other alliances, just serve to reinforce the SF/C&G image of a handful of smart people leading legions of slack-jawed dolts, whose peak of mental activity is spouting memes and entering debates to ask 'umad? '. [quote name='chris8967']I shouldn't have dragged NPO into this argument because of a statement one of her members made.[/quote] I would be fine with you involving us in this conversation if what you said had any basis in reality. How you've survived a year and a half in this game is a mystery.

[quote name='theArrowheadian' timestamp='1282759962' post='2431025'] Thanks NPO and NpO [/quote] You are most welcome.

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1282745160' post='2430799'] Most of the posting I do is for my own entertaining. Basically I high five myself. If someone jumps into before lefty meets righty, then that's just icing on the cake. It may not have been you directly, but anyone who mentions that Hoo imposed terms after saying he wouldn't is both mentioning Hoo and, by highlighting the contradiction of his words versus his actions, calling him a liar. I really don't like having to explain these kind of simple, linear things so let's not play this game. That's exactly the point I was making. Go ahead and follow the flow of these quotes back a bit and see. Back in NPO's Hegemony days, alliances were attacked for far, far less and had to endure far, far worse terms, if they got any at all. And this wasn't an infrequent thing. This was the norm. And yet somehow we'll have people crying that it's all the same today. I just don't get it. [/quote] Keep trying man, you might get something to stick one day. Like I said, I was pointing out to the people who were trying to say that there are no terms that there actually are terms imposed on NSO. I didn't mention Hoo or what he said, and I frankly don't care. I wouldn't take anyone's word as gospel during negotiations until the deal was signed and done. You wouldn't have to play that game you're playing if you stopped trying to twist my words in some desperate attempt to 'score a point'. And no, that's not the point you were trying to make, at least that's not what your posts earlier where saying. You were one of the herd trying to claim that light terms equal no terms. Something is not nothing. 0.00000001 is not 0. You finally recognized that point on the previous page. Congratulations. I don't remember seeing anyone claiming these terms are as bad as some in the past though, are you making stuff up again?

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1282740211' post='2430725'] I'm not denying that terms exist. They are obviously in the OP. But this is like a teacher promising no homework that night then just before everyone leaves the evil, lying, son of a !@#$%* teachers cries out, "Psyche! Your homework for tonight is to write your name on this piece of paper before you leave. Oh, oh, oh, and tell me about your breakfast when you come back in tomorrow." Cue children crying about the homework. Terms exist but they are negligible and therefore irrelevant. You can call Hoo an evil lying son of a !@#$%* for giving NSO these easy as hell terms, but you'd look like a fool for doing it. I doubt Hoo cares all that much. I know I wouldn't. [/quote] I'm not sure if you're confusing me with someone, or if you're just incredibly keen to get some highfives from RoK for trying so very hard to deliver a sick burn on a Pacifican (very poor attempt, by the way), but I think you'll find that I haven't called Hoo evil or a liar or mentioned him at all throughout the thread. I am simply pointing out to his supporters in this thread that are saying there are no terms that they did in fact impose terms, because I know that in the weeks and months ahead you lot are going to proclaim that no terms for NSO means you are amazingly benevolent and different from those mean ex-heg types, because, NO TERMS, RIGHT GUYS. While you certainly have a case to make regarding differences in the harshness of terms from this war and times past, you would be much better served actually making that case rather than trying to convince everyone that light terms equals no terms. So perhaps you should see what is being argued before jumping in and calling people fools and employing a variation of the too cool for school defense (Hoo [i]and[/i] I are too cool for school ).

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1282736574' post='2430688'] It really, really does because these are negligible. Being from an alliance that has handed out and received far worse, you'd think you'd recognize that. But I guess you need something to complain about so have at it. [/quote] No, it really doesn't. Just because they are small/easy to complete/meant to be funny/not cash or tech does not mean they don't exist. Stop being so defensive and read what I am saying. I am not complaining about the peace settlement at all, I said previously that they are light terms, and I recognize they could have been worse. What I am objecting to is you and your kind shouting 'THERE ARE NO TERMS', when there clearly are. They are light terms, but they are still terms. I'm not sure why I'd need something to complain about, things are going great over here. I just had to point out the absurdity of you people arguing profusely that there are no terms, in a thread where the OP lays out the terms handed down to NSO and is largely made up of the statements NSO were made to agree to, like threatening TENE, etc.

[quote name='Vesalius' timestamp='1282710980' post='2430479'] No, seriously. It's a beer review. It'll take someone 15 minutes. This is a thousand times closer to white peace than any actual terms. [/quote] Again, you are missing the point. I'm not disputing that these are light terms. Yes, it is very easy for someone to fulfill the term. That does not suddenly mean that the term is not a term. Your argument is kind of like someone saying 'There are no hidden fees!'. Then you check, and there is one, and they say 'Well, its only one, that doesn't really count, does it? I mean, it could be worse'. A term is a term is a term.

[quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1282709611' post='2430457'] You could have always helped them if you felt they were ganged up on [/quote] That's a really stupid thing to say. Because, you know, Pacifica intervening against your coalition wouldn't have triggered a wave of DoW's from SF and all its tag-alongs, resulting in even worse odds for NSO? Besides which, we like to honour the requests of our allies, as we did in this war when they asked us not to get involved.

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1282708931' post='2430442'] This exactly. You can hardly call these terms. More of a formality. [/quote] The size, harshness, or intended humour of a set of terms does not in any way effect the fact of their existence.

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1282111741' post='2421272'] (hint: Please don't piss off people who are generally friendly to you. Piss off NPO or IRON or something.) [/quote] It's ok Penky, perhaps one day you will be able to do something of consequence yourself, rather than crying out for others to do it for you.

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1281435221' post='2409456'] If NPO is bored of being mentioned, I and I would suspect others are sure as hell am bored of them and their supporters spamming LOL U NEED A BOOGEYMAN all over a thread in response to them being mentioned. You guys clearly think you're onto something good but you're being far more loud and obnoxious than anyone else. [/quote] I think you will find that we will be quite happy to stop pointing out that fact as soon as you and your supporters stop using 'WE'RE NOT AS BAD AS NPO LAWL' as a justification for everything you do.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1281430255' post='2409381'] I'm not afraid of the NPO. I'm simply pointing out that the NPO imposed viceroys on the alliances they defeated. [/quote] Yes, you are doing so in a blatant attempt to continue painting the current power structure in some kind of messianic light relative to when the oh-so-evil and terrifying NPO was dominant. The funny thing is, pretty much the only thing you have left to make this point with is viceroys, and as has been mentioned they are largely unworkable now. Add that to the fact that SF alliances used viceroys in the past when they were able to be implemented successfully, and your argument is starting to sound quite hollow indeed.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1281429807' post='2409370'] SF aren't NPO. [/quote] "And remember children, the boogeyman will always be under your bed. But don't look to see for yourselves, that will make it [i]really[/i] mad!"

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281404862' post='2408836'] Im not sure how they do it in the alternate dimension where you reside, but here in mine its quite common, expected even, to deal with the protector for issues invoving the protectorate. Rok is not a second hand source, you have an issue with the protectorate you deal with the protector. [/quote] So had Rag confirmed membership, or did they just see the war on their protectorate's AA? And if they had, why did they decide to withhold the information from NSO? Also, your baiting is hilarious, yet pitifully amateurish and ineffectual.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281401352' post='2408735'] Wait "Hes at war with our protectorate" isn't confirmation enough of membership for you? Stick your head a little deeper into the sand why don't you? I get you feel you have a duty to demonize us being the other side and all, but put some effort into at least. [/quote] Depends on the situation really, little AA's are often run incompetently. There was recently a situation where our MilCom contacted the gov of a small AA to see if a nation that was causing trouble was a ghost or not. They said it was a ghost, so the nation was cleared for attack and hit a day or so later was hit by one of our nations. Then, 3 members of the alliance that was being ghosted attacked our member. So when some alliances can't even decide if a nation is a member of theirs or not, I find it hard to fault NSO asking for proof, when the information about the attack was coming second-hand through Rag, not from TENE.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1281383900' post='2408159'] Yea, no proof at all, his warscreen full of wars on Rok's protectorate is totally not proof of anything. [/quote] Because we all know that because someone is wearing an AA, they [i]must[/i] be a member of that alliance. Had Rag or TENE provided the information that was requested by NSO in the beginning, we wouldn't be in this situation.

[quote name='Sande' timestamp='1281329442' post='2406467'] After seeing some NPO members whine about the CB already, I could say Iwas right. Now they just have to keep going until they get 200 pages. [/quote] I think you will find that far more people than just Pacificans are not convinced by this CB Rag and co have cooked up. Perhaps using a solid CB for once, rather than "You may possibly have tried to spy 6 months ago during a war" or "You aided someone that we class as a rogue but we refuse to provide proof of them being a rogue", may preclude people from complaining about it.

[quote name='kotic' timestamp='1280873595' post='2399993'] You guys do understand your debating about a NAME right? Everyone complaining about the name should get off the play ground. Atleast when I spoke of the seal of approval it basically was NPOs flag.and there wasn't a big !@#$@#$ debate about it [/quote] Well, I was going to say something about the seal after reading your post, but then I went back to the OP and couldn't see what you were referring to. The name, on the other hand, is right there in the title.

[quote name='wilhelm the demented' timestamp='1280748474' post='2398278'] Yeah, I'm certain we've addressed these things on multiple occasions. I even remember discussing much of this with you in the Q&A on your home boards, so please forgive me if I dismiss everything you repeatedly say as nothing more than an attempt to deface us in public. You have no interest in resolving the issue - you've made that blatantly obvious. You aren't testing the extent of my intellectual ability, you're testing the extent of my tolerance. [/quote] If you count saying 'We were forced into it! Also, we wanted to make amends for being allied to you', as addressing these issues, then you'll have to forgive me if I'm not impressed. And yes, I'm looking at the quote now. Unfortunate, having a record like that sitting around eh? I have an interest in Sparta taking responsibility for their actions. No, of course I'm not going to accept your NPO demonisation story, however well that might have worked on your new buddies in SF and C&G. So, you're not intellectually limited, just intellectually lazy eh? I don't see another reason to go back to the Spartan standard response of umad.

[quote name='wilhelm the demented' timestamp='1280746581' post='2398262'] Yeah, umad. As for your claims, you've misconstrued some terms and events to suit the portrait you'd like to paint of us - I'm sure it was intentional, I just wanted to point it out. It's the same black and white argument presented by any single person that has an issue with Sparta. [/quote] Thanks for proving the extent of your intellectual capability. And you were the one that claimed you were forced to become a puppet, and tried to blame a lot of your history on us. I just extrapolated from that to produce a Spartan's version of Spartan history. Feel free to put it on your wiki as the official version. Like I said, the reason you keep hearing these criticisms is because they are legitimate ones that your alliance fails to address.

[quote name='wilhelm the demented' timestamp='1280745550' post='2398253'] We could also substitute that wall of text with "People just want a reason to see Sparta fall, so they invent them." It would be more accurate as well. Obligatory: "umad?" If by "my own" you mean "unoriginal imitation". [/quote] I see it's not just Olaf that's been bitten with the bug to ingratiate himself with the bottom feeders of CN. Congrats, way to appeal to the lowest common denominator there buddy. And really, is that the best response you can come up with? I just summarized your entire history in a few sentences, using the arguments Spartans themselves had made, and none of it was good. Inventing a reason to fall? None of that was invention. Like I said, addressing the criticism might help your image. Imitation? Of who, or is this just another one of your baseless throwaway lines?