Jump to content

VIdiot the Great

Members
  • Content Count

    579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About VIdiot the Great

  • Rank
    VIndictiveness, Inc.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    ChrisLand
  • Alliance Name
    OTS
  • Resource 1
    Silver
  • Resource 2
    Spices
  1. [quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1285042823' post='2459626'] Comparing current probable actions to actions done years ago under different leaders is different than your analogy.[/quote] My 'analogy' wasn't an analogy at all, just a statement of affairs. To wit: alliances even when they change leaders still have the treaties they had with the previous leaders, unless they affirmatively cancel the treaty (unless there's an automatic cancellation clause). [quote]A more accurate analogy would be, you are likely to defend alliance x, even though you havn't had a treaty with that alliance for 2
  2. [quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1285008903' post='2459082'] I want you to make a list of current TPF leadership or within the last 12-18 months that were in UJW. Now make a list of mk members that were in TPF during UJW. Your simple one liners need some context to the last few years to be of any relevance. A majority of folks that had any clue what was going on in that war are likely in PC or other alliances by now. [b]Actions should be associated more with those in power to execute them, rather than to any particular name in ones AA.[/b] [/quote] Respectfully, the bolded section above is i
  3. Dear God, who be that lass in your avatar?

  4. [quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1284685549' post='2456170'] It has always been this bad. Whats even worse is this game has lost some of its best posters and gained more of the people who tend to talk in circles and post uselessly. Its not so much about complexity of argument, since some of the best posters are the ones who post in this style, but rather its that people think they are being intelligent in their complexity and simply sounding like a drooling baboon. C'est la vie. [/quote] I agree with this as well. But further, I think it's much rarer to true political ideological d
  5. When I left this game, over a year ago, I remember thinking that the forums had been degenerating to a point that it was literally painful to read them. I don't care if you're 13, drafting a coherent sentence should not be above your ability level. Further, the amount of 'no u' posts is staggering. It's like I stumbled into Chuck-E-Cheese and no one has had their naps. A year ago, I didn't think it could get any worse. I stand corrected. The amount of idiotic polls, including this one, would make a developmentally disabled five year old stand up and say 'Goddamn, that's dumb.' Furt
  6. [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1283191377' post='2435920']Rules[/quote] Neither 'rule' is acceptable because it interferes with my nation's sovereignty. Should I choose to declare war, I will do so, as others may decide to declare on me. As another poster pointed out, I am not relinquishing one iota of sovereignty absent my consent to do so (for instance, agreeing to be bound by an alliance charter and treaties). If there are consequences to my declaration of war, then I have to accept those consequences as part and parcel to my actions.
  7. [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1284122173' post='2448778'] Thanks (I guess I got a bit confused with the CC name). So I was right the first time. To go into more depth and counter Seipher's argument. Yes the alliances made up the Coalition of Cowards did ultimately fight in Karma. But claiming it was purely for strategic reasons doesn't sit well with me. [/quote] You're right, they didn't do it for strategic reasons. They did it out of shame. From my experience, TOP was a fantastic ally. From my review, IAA and CSN (the ones that backed up GATO) were stalwart alliances as wel
  8. [quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1284046455' post='2447683'] Depends on your definition of success. I mean if they are happy, growing, active etc they are succeeding. As for being the best alliance (as the thread is titled.) I would have to say they wouldn't fit the bill. [/quote] Depends on your definition of 'best' - if they're doing all the things you've outlined, that could qualify. I do agree popularity plays into it, but depending on your definition of 'best alliance' a relative unknown could certainly qualify.
  9. Schatt, how many times do I have to tell you, if you don't send a proper invoice with the appropriate letterhead, you're not going to get a response. However, good luck collecting. Don't accept endorsed third party checks. Just a heads up.
  10. [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1283701471' post='2442629'] Anyone who claims to be immune to 'fear of getting rolled' is either lying or stupid.[/quote] Hmm, is this multiple choice? I guess I'll go with a bit of both. [quote]Getting rolled greatly decreases your ability to project power, and that is a vital ability whatever your primary objectives within CN are.[/quote] This is very true, if that's your goal. [quote]For example, look at the NPO: they like to play the game in a deeply political way and control how the world works; they slipped up in that, got rolled and now
  11. I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. The basis for my disagreement can be found here. I think it's way too soon to say that Karma failed. If Karma's goal was to defeat the hegemony, then it would appear that they were very successful. Ultimately, I don't think Karma answered my question posed in the post referenced above, either internally or externally. And without an answer to that specific question, you can't really judge whether it was a win or a loss. VI
  12. 'Unnecessary' is completely dependent upon the goals of the alliance and its individual member nations. There can be many reasons why fighting beside your alliance mates could be considered necessary, and reasons why it may not be. I would hazard a guess that we can agree that it would be the call of the individual member as to whether something was necessary or unnecessary. VI
  13. All the 'blah blah blah' is you conceding the point that there's no objective scale. As to your question, it seems to presume that I support the terms given to the NPO. I have not stated one way or the other whether I do or not. Nor will I at this time. But I'll play along. Fortunately, the situation is not as hypothetical as you may think. During the NoV war, FS was faced by overwhelming odds. Certain nations were in peace mode in order to rebuild, and of course we took abuse for that. Anyway, it would piss me off no end if those were the terms offered to ME. Note I said 'me' be
×
×
  • Create New...