Bob Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1320530272' post='2839807'] DT, don't forget what Xiphosis did. Mjölnir, I urge you to stand by your allies in Ragnarok should they choose to defend NSO. Yes, you may be on the same coalition side as some people you hate, but you will finally be able to exact your revenge on the manipulative MK. I am sure I do not need to remind you about Ardus' comment of a diminished Mjölnir. [/quote] MJOLNIR WILL DESTROY MK WITH THE FORCE OF A THOUSAND HEARTS RAIN HELL FIRE DOWN ON THEIR SOULSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ARDUS IS THE DEVILLLLLLLL did i forget to mention i love mk and attacking them would make them ever so happy so i highly recommend it to anyone out there thinking about it. Edited November 6, 2011 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320547409' post='2839986'] Oh, I thought this was just about getting Tetris out of the conflict. Now the moral crusade morphs into something else. I look forward to the next update. [/quote] If you thought that then you're blind. The first post I made in this thread that you responded to made it quite clear that getting Tetris out was not the only thing I care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1320565074' post='2840112'] If you thought that then you're blind. The first post I made in this thread that you responded to made it quite clear that getting Tetris out was not the only thing I care about. [/quote] Not at all, you made it clear you were tired of their conduct on the OWF or the fact they were hogging the spotlight. Which was the same message as the original threat. The MK/VE threat of war isnt even about the ongoing war its about MK/VE thinking they run the OWF [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1320544381' post='2839936'] We don't care about who admits defeat. We care about the implications of their stupid fight on Tetris and their pollution of every OWF topic with terrible posts. If they would just keep their fight between themselves, we wouldn't give a !@#$ [/quote] [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1320423022' post='2838393'] Lately, this forum has degraded into one of the most despicable cesspools of posturing and e-peen waving we have ever seen. Specifically, the whining of the New Sith Order and the outrageous arguments that the Legion have been making are new lows for us as a community. We cannot stand it any longer, our ears have bled enough. While Tetris have worked in earnest to find an amicable solution, the Legion and the New Sith Order have let their far-too-inflated egos get in the way of negotiating in good faith. As of update tonight, the Legion and New Sith Order have 72 hours to find a peace agreement. If peace has not been reached when this window expires, the Mushroom Kingdom and the Viridian Entente will take matters into our own hands. We'll show you how to truly coordinate on the battlefield, and we will demonstrate how to act with class until all parties have found peace. [b]War is peace.[/b] [/quote] Edited November 6, 2011 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='FlogYou' timestamp='1320547822' post='2839989'] Would you leave an ally on the field of battle? Especially when they have come in to defend you? [/quote] [color="#0000FF"]If Tetris wants to leave they're welcome to. Frankly I wouldn't blame them if they do. They're a damn fine ally, and I won't deny being a stupid and stubborn prick. Personally I'm fine fighting Legion on my own. But it is Tetris's choice in the end. I fail to see why MK and VE seem to think they ought to force the decision on them, or Legion or NSO for that matter.[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1320565074' post='2840112'] If you thought that then you're blind. The first post I made in this thread that you responded to made it quite clear that getting Tetris out was not the only thing I care about. [/quote] There are so many varying reasons for this move that change so often I'll just file this whole episode under "OccupyOWF" for simplicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1320540004' post='2839889'] Wrong. MK charged Carpe Diem twice the reps that CSN charged Dark Templar, 18k tech and the cash equivalent of 2k more tech: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100267 You charged TOOL 26,000 tech, almost triple the amount that CSN charged DT. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100820 [/quote] Carpe Diem broke surrender terms to reenter and in DT's case you're using the end result, not what was initially demanded. The TOOL "reps" were tech deals that, as expected, ended up never happening because they disbanded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Napalm Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) Soo... We have a thread made by someone who prior to this NSO-Legion war had never fought. He's making vague, inaccurate assessments against people. GOONS is in the list. A few once-allies/supporters of MK rush in to support this misguided assessment of MK as duplicitous. They miss the irony that they were dropped due to being turncoat, duplicitous $%&@s or errant popularity whores. Hegemonyhegemonykarmakarma. I enjoy these things, they serve to remind us all of the merits of being evil. Edited November 6, 2011 by Vanilla Napalm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1320569397' post='2840134'] Soo... We have a thread made by someone who prior to this NSO-Legion war had never fought. He's making vague, inaccurate assessments against people. GOONS is in the list. A few once-allies/supporters of MK rush in to support this misguided assessment of MK as duplicitous. They miss the irony that they were dropped due to being turncoat, duplicitous $%&@s or errant popularity whores. Hegemonyhegemonykarmakarma. I enjoy these things, they serve to remind us all of the merits of being evil. [/quote] Really? I'd love to hear how the STA were turncoats or duplicitous towards MK or errant popularity whores prior to their cancellation of our treaty. It is a thing of wonder to see someone wade in accusing someone of inaccurate assessments and then teeing off with one of their own. Edited November 6, 2011 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Napalm Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320569789' post='2840135'] Really? I'd love to hear how the STA were turncoats or duplicitous towards MK or errant popularity whores prior to their cancellation of our treaty. It is a thing of wonder to see someone wade in accusing someone of inaccurate assessments and then teeing off with one of their own. [/quote] Whilst i appreciate your point, To shed association with one gentleman would be pointless if at the same time they were to maintain a relationship with the creature buried deep within said gentleman's colon. Edited November 6, 2011 by Vanilla Napalm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1320570724' post='2840138'] Whilst i appreciate your point, To shed association with one gentleman would be pointless if at the same time they were to maintain a relationship with the creature buried deep within said gentleman's colon. [/quote] Well, as I am certain the STA does not reside in the lower reaches of anyone's digestive tract I have to ask exactly whose colon MK were residing in and what relevance, if any, that had to the cancellation of the treaty between the STA and MK? Edited November 6, 2011 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Napalm Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320570899' post='2840140'] Well, as I am certain the STA does not reside in the lower reaches of anyone's digestive tract I have to ask exactly whose colon MK were residing in and what relevance, if any, that had to the cancellation of the treaty between the STA and MK? [/quote] As MK in my analogy were the catalysts of treaty cancellation, it bemuses me to see them paradoxically interpreted as the recipient. Analogy can be tricky however, so i guess we can return to it at our leisure. A good question would be: Why, if MK are as apparently draconian as you consider them, would STA maintain an alliance with MK? If they have such a habit of using and disregarding allies, why would you have maintained it for so long a time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1320572130' post='2840142'] As MK in my analogy were the catalysts of treaty cancellation, it bemuses me to see them paradoxically interpreted as the recipient. Analogy can be tricky however, so i guess we can return to it at our leisure. A good question would be: Why, if MK are as apparently draconian as you consider them, would STA maintain an alliance with MK? If they have such a habit of using and disregarding allies, why would you have maintained it for so long a time? [/quote] Ah, so you decided to cover up your initial inaccurate assessment by plonking another one over the top. I can't wait to hear what the next one will be. During the time the STA was allied to MK they were not draconian and were respected allies of ours. When they started shifting away from that I approached them to ask what was going on and was intending to cancel the treaty myself if they could not assure me my concerns were unfounded. They assured me I was not reading things correctly so I left the treaty as-is only for them to cancel it without any warning a month or so later. We have not been allied to MK since that time and, as even Londo has pointed out, they have gone down a path that I don't agree with. I have not accused MK of having a habit of disregarding allies. The only thing I'd classify as disregarding an ally with respect to the STA and MK was when they cancelled our treaty without speaking to us before the cancellation was made public. Especially as we'd given them the courtesy only weeks earlier of discussing our concerns with them before we acted on anything. My issue is not with the cancellation as, looking at how things panned out, it would not have lasted much longer anyway. It was the manner in which it was cancelled. I hope that clarifies a few things for you. Edited November 6, 2011 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Napalm Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320572637' post='2840143'] Ah, so you decided to cover up your initial inaccurate assessment by plonking another one over the top. I can't wait to hear what the next one will be. [/quote] Inaccurate assessment? I see a straightforward interpretation of causation (dropping NpO requires dropping of STA) followed by a general question. [Quote] During the time the STA was allied to MK they were not draconian and were respected allies of ours. When they started shifting away from that I approached them to ask what was going on and was intending to cancel the treaty myself if they could not assure me my concerns were unfounded. They assured me I was not reading things correctly so I left the treaty as-is only for them to cancel it without any warning a month or so later. We have not been allied to MK since that time and, as even Londo has pointed out, they have gone down a path that I don't agree with. I have not accused MK of having a habit of disregarding allies. The only thing I'd classify as disregarding an ally with respect to the STA and MK was when they cancelled our treaty without speaking to us before the cancellation was made public. Especially as we'd given them the courtesy only weeks earlier of discussion our concerns with them before we acted on anything. My issue is not with the cancellation as, looking at how things panned out, it would not have lasted much longer anyway. It was the manner in which it was cancelled. I hope that clarifies a few things for you. [/quote] Thank you for the answer. But if that were to be the case, wouldn't it be right to assume you had no concern over their actions prior to September 2010? Other than their participation in the Umbrella-planned preemptive strike against NPO, i can't exactly see how they have projected this new found malevolence following this date. Other than perhaps not being courteous with their treating of the STA treaty, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1320573663' post='2840149'] Inaccurate assessment? I see a straightforward interpretation of causation (dropping NpO requires dropping of STA) followed by a general question. [/quote] Except you accused the STA of being turncoats, duplicitous and errant popularity whores. None of which you have backed up with any evidence. You then tried to hide that inaccurate assessment with another painting the STA as residents in NpO's back passage rather than recant your initial inaccurate assessment. Speaks volumes of your character if nothing else. [quote] Thank you for the answer. But if that were to be the case, wouldn't it be right to assume you had no concern over their actions prior to September 2010? Other than their participation in the Umbrella-planned preemptive strike against NPO, i can't exactly see how they have projected this new found malevolence following this date. Other than perhaps not being courteous with their treating of the STA treaty, of course. [/quote] I don't recall any particular concerns during the time we were treatied, there may have been some minor disagreements but nothing specific I can recall. Perhaps, if you have some specific examples of incidents I may or may not have objected to then I could pass comment on them for you. As far as MK's change of attitude, there are more things to a change of attitude than large incidents such as the one you mentioned. When you have been treatied to an alliance for some time you pick up on these things. A lot of people within the STA government and membership noticed it and it got to the stage where I spoke to MK's leadership directly to raise those concerns with them as any good ally would do. Edited November 6, 2011 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanilla Napalm Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320574946' post='2840153'] Except you accused the STA of being turncoats, duplicitous and errant popularity whores. None of which you have backed up with any evidence. You then tried to hide that inaccurate assessment with another painting the STA as residents in NpO's back passage rather than recant your initial inaccurate assessment. Speaks volumes of your character if nothing else. [/quote] The latter 'painting' does inform the former, if nothing else: It is occasionally difficult to differentiate between STA and NpO. Perhaps unfair, but considering you supported the OP in which GOONS was mistaken for a long-dead alliance, you can hardly censure me for an unfortunate oversight. [quote] I don't recall any particular concerns during the time we were treatied, there may have been some minor disagreements but nothing specific I can recall. Perhaps, if you have some specific examples of incidents I may or may not have objected to then I could pass comment on them for you. As far as MK's change of attitude, there are more things to a change of attitude than large incidents such as the one you mentioned. When you have been treatied to an alliance for some time you pick up on these things. A lot of people within the STA government and membership noticed it and it got to the stage where I spoke to MK's leadership directly to raise those concerns with them as any good ally would do. [/quote] A change of attitude can hardly call for the vitriol present within this thread. So other than "you've changed, man" what justification do you have for censuring them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1320576954' post='2840163'] The latter 'painting' does inform the former, if nothing else: It is occasionally difficult to differentiate between STA and NpO. Perhaps unfair, but considering you supported the OP in which GOONS was mistaken for a long-dead alliance, you can hardly censure me for an unfortunate oversight. [/quote] So, your inaccurate assessment of the STA being resident in the bowels of the NpO is proof we are duplicitous, turncoats and errant popularity whores? I am really looking forward to you explaining this to me. I'll grab a comfy chair..whenever you are ready. If you can show where I have supported the OP at all then be my guest, I'm happy to settle back in my comfy chair a little longer while you scurry about looking for that evidence. [quote] A change of attitude can hardly call for the vitriol present within this thread. So other than "you've changed, man" what justification do you have for censuring them? [/quote] What vitriol from me are you referring to? You know the drill, comfy chair, happy to wait etc. As for justification for censuring MK, if that is what you are going to call it, I invite you to peruse the other thread discussing their recent announcement with VE to see why I disagree with their actions. I think I have made it clear a number of times in that thread so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Anywho, I'll put a pot of tea on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1320530272' post='2839807'] Mjölnir, I urge you to stand by your allies in Ragnarok should they choose to defend NSO. Yes, you may be on the same coalition side as some people you hate, but you will finally be able to exact your revenge on the manipulative MK. I am sure I do not need to remind you about Ardus' comment of a diminished Mjölnir. [/quote] No thanks I prefer my infra and tech than defending NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1320530272' post='2839807'] Umbrella, for too long you have been the voice of reason in PB and DH. TOP [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54743&view=findpost&p=1436061]was the voice of reason[/url] for NPO and you are the voice of reason here. NPO eventually got what was coming to them, and so will MK. [/quote] And when it comes time to reap horrible vengeance upon MK, we shall lend you our sword just as TOP did for Karma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1320566551' post='2840122']I fail to see why MK and VE seem to think they ought to force the decision on them, or Legion or NSO for that matter.[/color] [/quote] Because you asked them to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Well that was a tiresome read. As long as it's expedient for the majority to tolerate the existence of a power structure then it will endure. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1320530272' post='2839807'] Umbrella, for too long you have been the voice of reason in PB and DH. TOP [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54743&view=findpost&p=1436061]was the voice of reason[/url] for NPO and you are the voice of reason here. NPO eventually got what was coming to them, and so will MK. [/quote] gonna be so satisfying to throw MK to the wolves makaveli son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilyn Caster Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 No mention of CnG? You wound me sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 [quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1320555044' post='2840063'] I wasn't aware we were looking to take revenge on our allies MK, maybe I am missing something, after all we are just nominal [/quote] This post made me smile. But, only nominally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessOfLinn Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1320544381' post='2839936'] We don't care about who admits defeat. We care about the implications of their stupid fight on Tetris and their pollution of every OWF topic with terrible posts. If they would just keep their fight between themselves, we wouldn't give a !@#$ [/quote] As far as I know, Tetris have already agreed admit defeat to Legion and are free to leave the battlefield. As far as I know members of NSO goverment have said that they dont hold Tetris on the battlefield. Why is Tetris still on the field, they can leave anytime they want to? and please dont say because they will not leave a fellow allied behind when said allied have already given their ok to Tetris leaving the field. Edited November 6, 2011 by GoddessOfLinn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhyd3r Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Quite the rant there. Unknown Smurf creating discord and chaos unsuccessfully since 2011. 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.