Steve Buscemi Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1318865150' post='2827171'] Both instances when we were/are asked to stay out. Would you rather we don't listen to what our allies say? [/quote] We both know there is a little more too it than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1318871428' post='2827220'] We both know there is a little more too it than that. [/quote] When did you become an expert on Polar's relations with its allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wishywashy Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I wanted NG to attack TLR because I always forget who both of you are now. Oh well. Good bye SOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShouAS Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318861383' post='2827146'] Can't speak for RIA; go read the NukeKastel thread to figure out the reason for us. <stuff> Locke didn't cause the SOS-Invicta downgrade. He was the main original reason why the treaty existed in the first place. However he doesn't really know why we downgraded either, as he's not in either alliance anymore. Also he wasn't in either of our alliances when the upgrade happened. Also, nice timing there pork. [/quote] Haha that was just me poking fun at him being randomly butt hurt after I said that SOS inciting rogues on Europa was likely the reason for the downgrade. Thanks for confirming it, and proving his arguments totally wrong <3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Vine Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1318865150' post='2827171'] Both instances when we were/are asked to stay out. Would you rather we don't listen to what our allies say? [/quote] I think in this context (declaring on your allies not being a particularly ballsy move), the fact you are a liability to your own allies, who'd rather get pounded by whoever wants to attack them, than have you around attracting even more enemies - is not so much better than you shying away from a fight. Whether you don't care about your allies, or are more of a danger to them than help - it still makes you a pretty worthless ally, ties to which are strictly one sided (because I doubt you'd hesitate in calling in all your allies and their hamster if someone attacked you). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318871552' post='2827222'] When did you become an expert on Polar's relations with its allies? [/quote] I'm not. It's a general FA statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1318865150' post='2827171'] Both instances when we were/are asked to stay out. Would you rather we don't listen to what our allies say? [/quote] Personally? Yes. You didn't say, however "Try it and find out, assuming they don't ask us to stay out". You merely asked someone to try it and find out. What we've found out, is that you get told to sit on the sidelines...alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1318820018' post='2826708'] Locke and Bernkastel should still sleep with [b]one eye open[/b].[b] [/b] [/quote] I see what you did there. Edited October 17, 2011 by Jens of the desert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC123 Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I see a trend here: -Arrnea pissed off iFOK -Founding NsO government leaves due to Arrnea's paranoia. -Tetris cancels treaty with SOS due to Arrnea's paranoia. -Arrnea pretty much singlehandedly causes Tetris, NsO, and SLCB to become mortal enemies of SOS. -Arrnea's paranoia drove out Locke -Arrnea's paranoia drove out Bernkastel. -Arrnea had the ~*bRiLlIaNt*~ idea of starting the NukeKastel Fund, getting them downgraded with the rest of their allies. -Arrnea runs to PM when NG attacked (I really want to say he did this when SOS attacked NsO too). Correct me if I'm wrong in some spots, but I know the majority of that is accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='ShouAS' timestamp='1318842878' post='2827049'] So you have not been in the alliance for months, then why do you care? Or are you just butt hurt that someone spoke the truth and you can't handle it. [/quote] I care because you insult two alliances, one of them a close ally of your close ally. And you are so very wrong. [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318861383' post='2827146'] Locke didn't cause the SOS-Invicta downgrade. He was the main original reason why the treaty existed in the first place. However he doesn't really know why we downgraded either, as he's not in either alliance anymore. Also he wasn't in either of our alliances when the upgrade happened. [/quote] I know more than you think, Haf; I like to keep tabs on you both. [quote name='ShouAS' timestamp='1318871913' post='2827228'] Haha that was just me poking fun at him being randomly butt hurt after I said that SOS inciting rogues on Europa was likely the reason for the downgrade. Thanks for confirming it, and proving his arguments totally wrong <3 [/quote] Thank you for not reading my arguments and continuing to be wrong. The reason for the downgrade was a chronic lack of trust in the leadership. Yes, that thread obviously played a part, but to suggest that it came down Invicta picking one ally over another is an insult to Invicta's character. Invicta does not play favorites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1318860120' post='2827138'] You're confusing (either by mistake or on purpose) a so-called "right" with ability. Any alliance (or nation for that matter) has the ability to declare war on any other alliance/nation with or without reason. This is a fact. That fact, however, doesn't automatically make doing so the "right" (as in correct) choice. What people are discussing is whether or not Non Grata made the correct choice in their ability to do whatever they want. People are free to debate that if they wish. [/quote] There is no confusion at all. There is no right or wrong as true right or wrong is about how the community is. This world community has proven by action (and lack there of) they are within their sovereign rights as an alliance to act as they have. People saying it is Right or Wrong is merely perception based on their political stance or whatever posturing they subscribe to. The correct choice is 100% in the eyes of the person posting and in most cases that is once again 100% based on their political moves. Simple Facts: NG is within their sovereign rights as an alliance to A. Declare any alliance they so choose as their enemy. B. Create a declaration of War against any alliance or person they choose C. Reap the benefits or ill effects of their actions. Was this the right move for them... oh please, peddle that crap somewhere else. The Moralist bs in this world is just that bs. Said moralist bs is yet again, political posturing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Nukem Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Damn you NG! I'm supposed to hate you guys! Don't go around doing things that are good for bob like wiping out SOS. Grr . Anywho I wish you guys good luck with this endeavor and i'm rooting for you. o/ NG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessOfLinn Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1318817680' post='2826624'] Wait this is for real? Curse you NG for not waiting for our war is over. I would have joined you for this. [/quote] [quote name='dane0' timestamp='1318818061' post='2826644'] You guys did this without me? brb, joining NG. But in all seriousness, I plan to ghost you once this "problem" gets out of my way. [/quote] I am sure that some kind of arrangement can be made in order for you to help NG! A surrender maybe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMC123 Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1318878186' post='2827270'] I am sure that some kind of arrangement can be made in order for you to help NG! A surrender maybe [/quote] Har Har Har. I'm surprised it took this long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessOfLinn Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1318878730' post='2827272'] Har Har Har. I'm surprised it took this long [/quote] I tried to control myself, but lost the battle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='Holy Empire of Halin' timestamp='1318866208' post='2827177'] That said, CBless wars is how it should have always been, I am very happy that this is becoming a "trend". [/quote] That's the thing though, NG [i]did[/i] roll in with a CB. Their justification for war is outlined in the OP. But lets pretend that they stated simply that they were marching to war because they don't like SOS - not that there are a series of grievances as outlined in the OP - that too would constitute a CB (it being the attacking party's justification for war, even if it's not one that's shared by CN's general populace). What's open to interpretation and ultimately to debate is how strong their CB is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Vine Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1318879244' post='2827274'] I tried to control myself, but lost the battle [/quote] Not unlike Tetris. [size="1"](just had to)[/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1318874852' post='2827254'] There is no confusion at all. There is no right or wrong as true right or wrong is about how the community is. This world community has proven by action (and lack there of) they are within their sovereign rights as an alliance to act as they have. People saying it is Right or Wrong is merely perception based on their political stance or whatever posturing they subscribe to. The correct choice is 100% in the eyes of the person posting and in most cases that is once again 100% based on their political moves. Simple Facts: NG is within their sovereign rights as an alliance to A. Declare any alliance they so choose as their enemy. B. Create a declaration of War against any alliance or person they choose C. Reap the benefits or ill effects of their actions. Was this the right move for them... oh please, peddle that crap somewhere else. The Moralist bs in this world is just that bs. Said moralist bs is yet again, political posturing. [/quote] Mmm, I don't have any desire to derail the thread, but I did want to point out one thing: you can't say "X" alliance has the "right" to do this or that and in the same breath discount the so-called "moralist" school of thought. They are the same structure upon which are built different opinions of optimal alliance relations. Even the actions themselves undergo transformation in nuance once the cloth of "rights" or "morality" is draped over them, despite that they are the same actions. That said, I agree with the rest of your post stating that rights and morality is a community defined phenomenon and I even more agree with your point that people often pick one set of moral subscriptions over another when it suits their political position. Carry on. Edited October 17, 2011 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dane0 Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='GoddessOfLinn' timestamp='1318878186' post='2827270'] I am sure that some kind of arrangement can be made in order for you to help NG! A surrender maybe [/quote] Well maybe if you would unban me from your channel. But no, I still wouldn't surrender then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1318880170' post='2827278'] That's the thing though, NG [i]did[/i] roll in with a CB. Their justification for war is outlined in the OP. But lets pretend that they stated simply that they were marching to war because they don't like SOS - not that there are a series of grievances as outlined in the OP - that too would constitute a CB (it being the attacking party's justification for war, even if it's not one that's shared by CN's general populace). What's open to interpretation and ultimately to debate is how strong their CB is. [/quote] The CB can be summarized as "ancient iFOK internal drama" more or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baltus Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 Non Grata Prevails. In the end, there is no anime, there is only justice and those who dish it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1318874218' post='2827251'] I see a trend here: -Arrnea pissed off iFOK -Founding NsO government leaves due to Arrnea's paranoia. -Tetris cancels treaty with SOS due to Arrnea's paranoia. -Arrnea pretty much singlehandedly causes Tetris, NsO, and SLCB to become mortal enemies of SOS. -Arrnea's paranoia drove out Locke -Arrnea's paranoia drove out Bernkastel. -Arrnea had the ~*bRiLlIaNt*~ idea of starting the NukeKastel Fund, getting them downgraded with the rest of their allies. -Arrnea runs to PM when NG attacked (I really want to say he did this when SOS attacked NsO too). Correct me if I'm wrong in some spots, but I know the majority of that is accurate. [/quote] And that children, is the story about the weeaboo queen. Edited October 17, 2011 by erikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='erikz' timestamp='1318882002' post='2827293'] And that children, is the story about the weeaboo queen. [/quote] Arrnea is a guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1318882056' post='2827294'] Arrnea is a guy [/quote] As if I didnt know. Question: Why does [i]he[/i] act like a drama queen? Edited October 17, 2011 by erikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 [quote name='erikz' timestamp='1318882108' post='2827295'] As if I didnt know. Question: Why does [i]he[/i] act like a drama queen? [/quote] Act? If it was just an act, he could stop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.