The Overtime Accords

[Lord Boris]

Lordy the last few pages of this thread have been hilarious. I believe the summary so far looks something like this:


Moralist #1: Damn, the war's over. Now we've got to find something else to get offended about.
Moralist #2: Yeah. I was totally the best moralist of the war, though.
Moralist #1: Nuh uh. I was.
Moralist #2: Yeah I was. I've always been the best moralist.
Moralist #1: Have not been. You did that, that, and that in the past.
Moralist #2: Pfft, you did that, that, and that too. You're not a moralist.
Moralist #1: Yes I am. You're just s sycophant.
Moralist #2: Am not. I didn't do this, this, and this.
Moralist #1: I said you did that, that, and that. Did you moralist really too stupid to read?
Moralist #2:

[xoindotnler]

Boo moralists boo.

[Pingu]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1305036425' post='2709599']
Lordy the last few pages of this thread have been hilarious. I believe the summary so far looks something like this:


Moralist #1: Damn, the war's over. Now we've got to find something else to get offended about.
Moralist #2: Yeah. I was totally the best moralist of the war, though.
Moralist #1: Nuh uh. I was.
Moralist #2: Yeah I was. I've always been the best moralist.
Moralist #1: Have not been. You did that, that, and that in the past.
Moralist #2: Pfft, you did that, that, and that too. You're not a moralist.
Moralist #1: Yes I am. You're just s sycophant.
Moralist #2: Am not. I didn't do this, this, and this.
Moralist #1: I said you did that, that, and that. Did you moralist really too stupid to read?
Moralist #2:
[/quote]

Don't make me smile, Boris. We're supposed to be sworn enemies or something.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305013665' post='2709529']
There are still plenty of targets for those nations to hit, just because they aren't the "softies" doesn't mean that we've limited the number of wars that can be fought.
[/quote]
No !@#$, sherlock, but maybe you should go back and carefully re-read my post. Remember, if you get stuck on a word, you can use context clues to get you through!

Edited May 10, 2011 by HeroofTime55

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305031439' post='2709573']
The reason you fell out with Pacifica was because they preferred Continuum and you preferred Polar, not a generic call out on things. I remember perfectly your cancellation thread. Which is understandable. It doesn't really matter whether you were part of the blocs like 1V or Continuum, you were part of the structure, allied to both Polar and Pacifica, you took part in some of their wars effectively enforcing Pacifica and Polar position. But you weren't a single case, SuperFriends, CDT and Citadel were there too. To claim they're sycophants and you're not seems a bit out of purpose though.[/quote]

All my moralist cred...you burned it.

On the other hand this makes Xiph a mindless tool of The Orders.

Hmm...should I be happy or sad about now?

[Ardus]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305013283' post='2709526']
Are y'all really arguing about the GATO war here.
[/quote]
Shhh. It's rude to interrupt.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305049590' post='2709671']
All my moralist cred...you burned it.

On the other hand this makes Xiph a mindless tool of The Orders.

Hmm...should I be happy or sad about now?
[/quote]

Well, I remember [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15732"]this[/url] which was followed by [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15735"]this[/url]. Mindless would be an exaggeration considering Xiphosis had a own agenda for that conflict too, but nonetheless a tool of The Orders.

EDIT: Actually, looking back on that war from a moralist standpoint, there's not one single person coming out looking good in the picture, from Archon ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15784"]who supported the war[/url]) to Boris ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15776"]who canceled a MDoAP after the attacks had started[/url]). TFD didn't move with the rest of CDT because we disagreed with the principles behind the war. The [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15734"]CB[/url] is as bad as it gets and Illuminati had a grand total of 26 nukes against the 1500 the coalition assembled against them.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Lusitan

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305066655' post='2709786']
Well, I remember [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15732"]this[/url] which was followed by [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15735"]this[/url]. Mindless would be an exaggeration considering Xiphosis had a own agenda for that conflict too, but nonetheless a tool of The Orders.

EDIT: Actually, looking back on that war from a moralist standpoint, there's not one single person coming out looking good in the picture, from Archon ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15784"]who supported the war[/url]) to Boris ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15776"]who canceled a MDoAP after the attacks had started[/url]). TFD didn't move with the rest of CDT because we disagreed with the principles behind the war. The [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=15734"]CB[/url] is as bad as it gets and Illuminati had a grand total of 26 nukes against the 1500 the coalition assembled against them.
[/quote]

Actually, Terry Howard had already come to us and killed the treaty (doing so both in private as well as via a thread that had been posted prior to the one we made). We had just kept getting asked about it so we went ahead and posted the clarification that it was indeed dead. Nice try, though.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Lord Boris

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1305075640' post='2709864']
Actually, Terry Howard had already come to us and killed the treaty. We had just kept getting asked about it so we went ahead and posted the clarification that it was indeed dead. Nice try, though.
[/quote]

So instead of posting that you and Terry had canceled and he had waived the cancellation period you just went ahead and accused him of betraying you? Much better now

Boris, first step is acceptance. There are very few alliances, none surviving now probably, that can pride themselves of doing everything right at the time. [b]Which goes back to the point I tried to make[/b], no one really has a moral high-ground to accuse any other alliance of hiding under NPO skirt, everyone did it more or less and many did ugly things to avoid being stomped. It happened. You can all keep !@#$@#$ up and reviewing the history or you can stop worrying who was more or less NPO sycophant and move on. Why does anyone, besides STA's pathology, need a moral high-ground anyway?

Last note, I am not sure exactly what you think I am trying. For all I care you were irrelevant before my post and still are. You did make me dedicate three paragraphs to you though. But then again I am irrelevant too, so not much difference now. I need to quote this gold in your words though

[quote]Terry Howard, when you plot against your longest and most staunch allies, friends who would have stood by you through the end of Planet Bob (such is the character of Pacifica, as everyone is most likely fully aware), it makes us in FEAR wonder what you may have had in store for us, and we don't particularly like the possibilities.[/quote]

Edited May 11, 2011 by Lusitan

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305031439' post='2709573']
The reason you fell out with Pacifica was because they preferred Continuum and you preferred Polar, not a generic call out on things. I remember perfectly your cancellation thread. Which is understandable. It doesn't really matter whether you were part of the blocs like 1V or Continuum, you were part of the structure, allied to both Polar and Pacifica, you took part in some of their wars effectively enforcing Pacifica and Polar position. But you weren't a single case, SuperFriends, CDT and Citadel were there too. To claim they're sycophants and you're not seems a bit out of purpose though.
[/quote]


Our preference for Polar over Pacific may have been part of the reason but not all of it. I certainly made a point of letting the NPO know when I disagreed with their actions and/or methods which resulted in the NPO not speaking to us at all for the majority of the time we held a treaty.

Certainly, after the GATO war the relationship was non-existent even though the treaty remained. While it may make things easier for you, I don't consider the STA to have ever been a sycophant of the NPO or anyone else for that matter.

[Canik]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305076186' post='2709868']
So instead of posting that you and Terry had canceled and he had waived the cancellation period you just went ahead and accused him of betraying you? Much better now

Boris, first step is acceptance. There are very few alliances, none surviving now probably, that can pride themselves of doing everything right at the time. [b]Which goes back to the point I tried to make[/b], no one really has a moral high-ground to accuse any other alliance of hiding under NPO skirt, everyone did it more or less and many did ugly things to avoid being stomped. It happened. You can all keep !@#$@#$ up and reviewing the history or you can stop worrying who was more or less NPO sycophant and move on. Why does anyone, besides STA's pathology, need a moral high-ground anyway?

Last note, I am not sure exactly what you think I am trying. For all I care you were irrelevant before my post and still are. You did make me dedicate three paragraphs to you though. But then again I am irrelevant too, so not much difference now. I need to quote this gold in your words though
[/quote]

I think Boris & most of FEAR would agree with you on the moral high-ground point. Which is probably why Boris was amused by moralists going at it. His only point seemed to be that we did not cancel on TNWO after attacks had started, which is true.

I wasn't too upset with Terry personally, for he knew he brought it on himself and waived the cancellation period. Of course, I wasn't Chancellor at the time and didn't have to deal with all the crap Boris probably had to put up with.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1305035030' post='2709594']
I'm sure it's not technically true, but close enough to say that at one point or another everyone was allied to the NPO. Some alliances have continued the old NPO practice of curbstomping for no reason while others, like the STA, have turned completely away from such things. Looking back to the past and pointing fingers can be fun or can boost one's ego, but it's the here and now that matters. And here and now we have some alliances who are claiming to be for the greater good by continuing the practices that we all faulted the NPO for. My alliance isn't one of those. Can you truthfully say the same about yours?
[/quote]
There were many things that many people opposed NPO for but I think I speak for many when I say that we didn't intend for Karma to be the war to end all wars.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305013283' post='2709526']
Are y'all really arguing about the GATO war here.
[/quote]
Can you imagine how bad this argument would be if I hadn't singlehandedly removed the Black sphere from the war?

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305031439' post='2709573']
To claim they're sycophants and you're not seems a bit out of purpose though.
[/quote]
I claimed they were all sycphants, not Tyga.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305078394' post='2709889']
There were many things that many people opposed NPO for but I think I speak for many when I say that we didn't intend for Karma to be the war to end all wars.
[/quote]
Which is not what Ragashingo said at all, but I wouldn't fault anyone in MK for dodging his question.

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305078394' post='2709889']
There were many things that many people opposed NPO for but I think I speak for many when I say that we didn't intend for Karma to be the war to end all wars.
[/quote]

After being against the practices of the NPO for two plus years at that point I had hoped it would be. Not to end all wars, of course, since that would be boring, but to end... I don't know... the blatantly unjust ones. And then y'all brought us this one. My mistake for being too much of an optimist I suppose.

[quote name=Schattenmann]
Which is not what Ragashingo said at all, but I wouldn't fault anyone in MK for dodging his question.
[/quote]

Yeah, I wondered about that, but since you pointed it out for me I went ahead and gave him an actual reply. Besides it's so clear which side of the line his alliance falls on that there really isn't any point in him putting up a counter argument.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1305035030' post='2709594']
I'm sure it's not technically true, but close enough to say that at one point or another everyone was allied to the NPO. Some alliances have continued the old NPO practice of curbstomping for no reason while others, like the STA, have turned completely away from such things. Looking back to the past and pointing fingers can be fun or can boost one's ego, but it's the here and now that matters. And here and now we have some alliances who are claiming to be for the greater good by continuing the practices that we all faulted the NPO for. My alliance isn't one of those. Can you truthfully say the same about yours?
[/quote]

I don't think anyone claims doing stuff for the greater good. Even those who claim that this or that will kill Planet Bob don't seem to figure out that not allowing things flow by themselves by having the constant "you must not do stuff that will kill the Planet" buzzing in everyone's ears is part of the problem and not the solution. The largest extinction of nations happened after Karma, not before when NPO was driving people out of Planet Bob. The irony.

All in all, what I mean is that it's pointless to bother with technicalities and how much outrage you feel or think others should feel about something. There's actions and there's politics. If people had a little more ambition and a little less conformism we wouldn't be seeing 200 pages threads around here, we wouldn't be concerned about the decreasing number of nations and we wouldn't be discussing how similar DH's practices are to NPO's. We'd be discussing how to make use of them to gain advantage over each other. Some alliances these days worry more about doing the honorable thing than being on top, and that's why we aren't moving anywhere. It's ok when one or two want to be the moralist of the gang (and we already have the neutrals for that), but when everyone does, we have stagnation.

Denouncing practices you dislike for political purposes is excellent and I encourage it. But what we see here everyday is not that. It's people genuinely offended, banging their heads on a virtual wall because of something that used to milk PR points back in the day but today is absolutely irrelevant and somewhat disgusting.

I really hate to be one to pull this line, but if you don't like it, do something about it. And in the meanwhile go read Machiavelli for inspiration.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305083506' post='2709945']
I don't think anyone claims doing stuff for the greater good. Even those who claim that this or that will kill Planet Bob don't seem to figure out that not allowing things flow by themselves by having the constant "you must not do stuff that will kill the Planet" buzzing in everyone's ears is part of the problem and not the solution. The largest extinction of nations happened after Karma, not before when NPO was driving people out of Planet Bob. The irony.

All in all, what I mean is that it's pointless to bother with technicalities and how much outrage you feel or think others should feel about something. There's actions and there's politics. If people had a little more ambition and a little less conformism we wouldn't be seeing 200 pages threads around here, we wouldn't be concerned about the decreasing number of nations and we wouldn't be discussing how similar DH's practices are to NPO's. We'd be discussing how to make use of them to gain advantage over each other. Some alliances these days worry more about doing the honorable thing than being on top, and that's why we aren't moving anywhere. It's ok when one or two want to be the moralist of the gang (and we already have the neutrals for that), but when everyone does, we have stagnation.

[u]Denouncing practices you dislike for political purposes is excellent and I encourage it. But what we see here everyday is not that. It's people genuinely offended, banging their heads on a virtual wall because of something that used to milk PR points back in the day but today is absolutely irrelevant and somewhat disgusting. [/u]
I really hate to be one to pull this line, but if you don't like it, do something about it. And in the meanwhile go read Machiavelli for inspiration.
[/quote]


you do realize that you're part of a coalition that tried to use about 20 or 30 something reasons from back in the day as an excuse to attack NPO right?

Seriously that wall of text has me conflicted as to whether or not I should laugh or weep about your side.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1305084542' post='2709954']
you do realize that you're part of a coalition that tried to use about 20 or 30 something reasons from back in the day as an excuse to attack NPO right?

Seriously that wall of text has me conflicted as to whether or not I should laugh or weep about your side.
[/quote]

Because different alliances with a common goal cannot form a coalition with the same purpose but for different reasons? lol

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305084712' post='2709956']
Because different alliances with a common goal cannot form a coalition with the same purpose but for different reasons? lol
[/quote]
Seems the point went right over you're head, didn't even come close to your hairs.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305076186' post='2709868']
There are very few alliances, none surviving now probably, that can pride themselves of doing everything right at the time. [b]Which goes back to the point I tried to make[/b], no one really has a moral high-ground to accuse any other alliance of hiding under NPO skirt, everyone did it more or less and many did ugly things to avoid being stomped. It happened. You can all keep !@#$@#$ up and reviewing the history or you can stop worrying who was more or less NPO sycophant and move on. Why does anyone, besides STA's pathology, need a moral high-ground anyway?[/quote]

Let's go back to 2008 then. NPO was still pretty much a "condition of play", that is anyone running an alliance had to take NPO into account and if you popped up on their radar you made sure that you stay diplomatically agile enough to not become the next featured alliance on the OWF. That meant you tied yourself to NPO allies, even if you pretty much hated NPO and everything they stood for. Realpolitik, not principle ruled. NPO was not however the source of all evil in the universe. There were false crusades, people who were tied to NPO but acted of their own volition to do bad things. Oh and in the case of Illuminati, an alliance leader who not only didn't learn his lesson, but someone who threw away repeated opportunities to get himself and his alliance out of harm's way by plotting his "revenge" like a bad cartoon villain.

FYI: You will find if you read enough of my commentaries here that I do have a sense of right and wrong and that when people are being petty, stupid, too arrogant for the room, offending my sense of justice, or are generally doing things that are detrimental to the long term health of Planet Bob I will object, or at least point out the hypocrisy of others that lets them know I'm not impressed. Truthfully I don't think that actually makes me a "moralist" per se (at least the way it gets defined on Planet Bob), then again maybe it does.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1305084809' post='2709957']
Seems the point went right over you're head, didn't even come close to your hairs.
[/quote]

Our reason, as our President stated it, was to catch NPO in a favorable position to prevent their entry at their point of choice. I don't really care what other people or alliance's reasons were, nor I really care if you disagree with the fact we don't all have the same opinion on stuff.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305085044' post='2709960']
Let's go back to 2008 then. NPO was still pretty much a "condition of play", that is anyone running an alliance had to take NPO into account and if you popped up on their radar you made sure that you stay diplomatically agile enough to not become the next featured alliance on the OWF. That meant you tied yourself to NPO allies, even if you pretty much hated NPO and everything they stood for. Realpolitik, not principle ruled. NPO was not however the source of all evil in the universe. There were false crusades, people who were tied to NPO but acted of their own volition to do bad things. Oh and in the case of Illuminati, an alliance leader who not only didn't learn his lesson, but someone who threw away repeated opportunities to get himself and his alliance out of harm's way by plotting his "revenge" like a bad cartoon villain.

FYI: You will find if you read enough of my commentaries here that I do have a sense of right and wrong and that when people are being petty, stupid, too arrogant for the room, offending my sense of justice, or are generally doing things that are detrimental to the long term health of Planet Bob I will object, or at least point out the hypocrisy of others that lets them know I'm not impressed. Truthfully I don't think that actually makes me a "moralist" per se (at least the way it gets defined on Planet Bob), then again maybe it does.
[/quote]

Illuminati? A deserter showed screenshots of Terry Howard discussing in their private government forums the possibility of helping GPA and turning against NPO. Oh the crime of freedom of expression. They did nothing wrong. Xiphosis had an axe to grind and CDT was looking for an easy target to affirm themselves as bloc (it was divided in UJW with FARK going a different direction from the rest of the group). Everyone rode the NPO rollercoaster as much as they could.

I won't say there weren't alliances who were only treatied to NPO for self-preservation reasons, but 95% did enjoy the ride while they could. SuperFriends, Citadel, CDT and the Continuum buddies were at the center. Nearly everyone who went to the honey jar didn't resist licking their fingers at least once.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305083506' post='2709945']
All in all, what I mean is that it's pointless to bother with technicalities and how much outrage you feel or think others should feel about something. There's actions and there's politics. If people had a little more ambition and a little less conformism we wouldn't be seeing 200 pages threads around here, we wouldn't be concerned about the decreasing number of nations and we wouldn't be discussing how similar DH's practices are to NPO's. We'd be discussing how to make use of them to gain advantage over each other. Some alliances these days worry more about doing the honorable thing than being on top, and that's why we aren't moving anywhere. It's ok when one or two want to be the moralist of the gang (and we already have the neutrals for that), but when everyone does, we have stagnation.

Denouncing practices you dislike for political purposes is excellent and I encourage it. But what we see here everyday is not that. It's people genuinely offended, banging their heads on a virtual wall because of something that used to milk PR points back in the day but today is absolutely irrelevant and somewhat disgusting.

I really hate to be one to pull this line, but if you don't like it, do something about it. And in the meanwhile go read Machiavelli for inspiration.
[/quote]
I don't know if it's arrogance or idiocy but this little speech cracked me up.
I mean, just take your opening:
[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305083506' post='2709945']
[b]I don't think anyone claims doing stuff for the greater good.[/b] Even those who claim that this or that will kill Planet Bob don't seem to figure out that not allowing things flow by themselves by having the constant "you must not do stuff that will kill the Planet" buzzing in everyone's ears is part of the problem and not the solution. The largest extinction of nations happened after Karma, not before when NPO was driving people out of Planet Bob. The irony.[/quote]
I mean, really, [i]sparrrrrrre me.[/i]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
We were ready to enter. We, both in MK, and the community in general, were bored to tears from almost a year of no major fighting. This game was going downhill due to inaction. Moralism and cowardice had collectively smothered the conflict that drove it. Either NPO and co were going to enter and people on each side were waiting for the other side to enter first, in which case this was just a short cut to something that was taking obscenely long to happen. Or they were deliberately staying out. If they had stayed out, that would have been a nail in the coffin of this game. It would have set a precedent of cowardice that would have made major wars even more unlikely and inconceivable.

We chose to make the game interesting again. In the past months, MK chose to reshape our treaties in a way that helped make a major war possible. And when our enemies did everything they could to avoid a war, we, Doomhouse collectively, and one could also say VE, refused to let them. We helped put an end to the stagnation. We refused to comply with the moralistic and pacifistic gridlock that was smothering this game. We started to perfect Karma. We made war.[/quote]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300334058' post='2666890']
Our accomplishments are not absolute, nor are they perfect. Already this battle has revealed much work remains to be done in spreading our vision of the world. But in time, all will see the light that is our message, shining from the depths of the Box.

We near the end. The end of forced disbandment. The end of terms that cripple alliances forever. The end of silence for fear of persecution. The end of the influence of those who would overthrow these goals in favor of their own return to power. The end of cowardice. The end of myth and fear. The end of this war.
[/quote]

[quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1295928088' post='2597854']
We cannot allow any chance of a return to power by the New Pacific Order. For years they ruled with an iron fist. They engineered a multitude of first strike "curbstomps," the most grossly abusive among them being the glibly named Woodstock Masscre against the Green Protection Agency. Never one to face an enemy with an even remote chance of victory, and always one to beat on the weak and the vulnerable, the New Pacific Order was a true master of the first strike attack. They could not only beat down the weak, but they had maneuvered the politics of the day such that they could do so with impunity.
[/quote]

And the crowing glory of Doomhouse's new world-saving asshammery: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=93789


Maybe you're a liar and you think that no one is paying attention so you can say "no one is talking about saving the world" Maybe you're ignorant of your own leaders' agendas. Either way you are wrong. This is the New Moralism, creative annihilation. Doomhouse will save the world with NPO's tactics, but only this time, for the [i]benefit of us all[/i], or something . . . yeah . . .

Edited May 11, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1305083506' post='2709945']
I don't think anyone claims doing stuff for the greater good. Even those who claim that this or that will kill Planet Bob don't seem to figure out that not allowing things flow by themselves by having the constant "you must not do stuff that will kill the Planet" buzzing in everyone's ears is part of the problem and not the solution. The largest extinction of nations happened after Karma, not before when NPO was driving people out of Planet Bob. The irony.

All in all, what I mean is that it's pointless to bother with technicalities and how much outrage you feel or think others should feel about something. There's actions and there's politics. If people had a little more ambition and a little less conformism we wouldn't be seeing 200 pages threads around here, we wouldn't be concerned about the decreasing number of nations and we wouldn't be discussing how similar DH's practices are to NPO's. We'd be discussing how to make use of them to gain advantage over each other. Some alliances these days worry more about doing the honorable thing than being on top, and that's why we aren't moving anywhere. It's ok when one or two want to be the moralist of the gang (and we already have the neutrals for that), but when everyone does, we have stagnation.

Denouncing practices you dislike for political purposes is excellent and I encourage it. But what we see here everyday is not that. It's people genuinely offended, banging their heads on a virtual wall because of something that used to milk PR points back in the day but today is absolutely irrelevant and somewhat disgusting.

I really hate to be one to pull this line, but if you don't like it, do something about it. And in the meanwhile go read Machiavelli for inspiration.
[/quote]

You didn't even attempt to answer my question.

As for the rest of it, it's not like the moral-less have ever not been able to do what they wanted. They just don't get to have their way without consequences in this world. But then that's equally true of everyone isn't it? Really though, I really don't feel like being drawn into a ridiculous debate about moralism tonight. Maybe someone can fill in for me?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Ragashingo

[Alterego]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304919897' post='2708943']
Umbrella was always going to take most of the slots
[/quote]

For an alliance who threw such a childish temper tantrum about people not being allowed to sit in peace mode and going as far as punishing an alliance for doing it you would think having 70 MK members in peace mode including 4 of their top 6 would infuriate MK. Then again its MK, they wouldn’t know brave or honourable if it slapped them in the face. Get out of peace mode, stop acting like infra hugging hypocritical cowards and come out from behind your meatshield

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1305078394' post='2709889']
There were many things that many people opposed NPO for but I think I speak for many when I say that we didn't intend for Karma to be the war to end all wars.
[/quote]

Ask 20 karma leaders what it was and you will get 20 different answers. You are vague when politics demands it and clear when it doesnt.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Alterego

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1305086514' post='2709966']
Maybe you're a liar and you think that no one is paying attention so you can say "no one is talking about saving the world" Maybe you're ignorant of your own leaders' agendas. Either way you are wrong. This is the New Moralism, creative annihilation. Doomhouse will save the world with NPO's tactics, but only this time, for the [i]benefit of us all[/i], or something . . . yeah . . .
[/quote]

When quoting my leaders you seem to have forgotten my actual leader and focused instead on Mushroom Kingdom for some reason, and for that your post is as useless as it is fallacious. But I'll spare you the effort of looking it up:

[quote]We have a situation here where people are thinking NPO was attacked for no reason other than dislike. This narrative, while pleasing to many as it is making their propaganda efforts rather easy, is inaccurate. It ignores much of what was taking place in the lead up to the war.

For one, is it not obvious that Pacifica was generally opposed to Pandora's Box? Were there not enough clues that they wanted closer relations to that end with the New Polar Order? Did the spheres not become intertwined by the month with signing of Legion-NpO, TPF-STA, and NPO-TIO? You can say that was only an ODP, but it was clear there was an intent to upgrade the treaty given the review clause and leaks from NPO's FA department.

Many are well aware of the fact that the New Sith Order had been working for months on relations with Polaris and gave up its grievance for presumably a pragmatic end. One can see evidence of this in the Lennox screens given his presence in the joint NSO-Polar channel. The NPO had also been putting forth an incredible effort into building trust with the New Polar Order. NpO even made comments to that effect when the question of diplomatic teams came up in the CN awards. Was it not clear? The NSO's relationship with the Siberian Tiger Alliance was also well known. Given the two spheres becoming increasingly conjoined, was it not a clear expectation that they would be fighting alongside one another? The NPO and its allies were fully involved in politics and they had a star which they hitched their wagon. Their interests were in opposing PB and that can't really be denied.

To focus on the preempt: it simply didn't make sense to give the NPO sphere an ideal entry point from which to enter as it dragged out, especially when it was clear they did want to see how Doomhouse would react when they stalled. It would have been a dumb idea in terms of the overall war effort for NPO and allies to enter early on. It would have killed any swing potential the Polar side had given the swing alliances hate NPO and wouldn't be happy fighting alongside them. They needed more of that strength in before they could make their move or else it would be their end. Given all those factors and the war dragging out without their entrance, preemption was the best move that could be made. The current line is NPO wasn't going to enter.

If they were neutral the entire time, why was there no declaration of neutrality? It would have been effective especially if they were worried about getting struck out of nowhere? How bad would have Doomhouse looked if we had attacked despite a declaration of neutrality? Instead, the NPO elected to begin mobilization and either wait for the preempt to take place or prepare for a later entry. Given mobilization occurred sometime before the preempt became a real possibility, it could have been a mix of both. Another possibility is that the NPO and its allies decided entering was too risky when it became clear the swing potential would not be actualized and they wanted to infrahug, but yet again, no declaration of neutrality despite the looming of threat of attack.

In the end, this was not a neutral alliance getting preempted, as I stated before Duckroll's stance was widely advertised. An out of the blue attack on a neutral alliance would be more fitting to MK attacking BAPS because Archon made some comments expressing such a desire, yet that is unlikely to happen ever. Looking at the bigger picture, NPO and its allies had been set on opposing Pandora for some time and that is why they were preempted. It's already been stated that an actual out of the blue attack would have garnered far more support than this because of alliances being tied down on other fronts a few months down the line after the Polar-VE war. I'm well aware that people won't be persuaded if they are too hardened in their stances, but letting the continued flurry of the sob story of Pacifica being innocent and wanting to be left alone go uncontested is something that can't be allowed. Even if it ends up being like using a battering ram on the Great Wall of China, it's worth arguing. [/quote]

I don't really see moralism here, but if you do, good for you. You might want to check with a doctor though.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1305088248' post='2709976']
You didn't even attempt to answer my question.

As for the rest of it, it's not like the moral-less have ever not been able to do what they wanted. They just don't get to have their way without consequences in this world. But then that's equally true of everyone isn't it? Really though, I really don't feel like being drawn into a ridiculous debate about moralism tonight. Maybe someone can fill in for me?
[/quote]

To answer your question simply and quickly, no my alliance hasn't. And I challenge you to point out a situation where we have.