A Briefest Comment on RIA

[Baron Flynt]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1322777360' post='2858501']
Why is it funny? What is making you laugh? the fact we fought against UPN/SOS? well atleast we had the balls to do something to keep us entertained..
[/quote]

Yes, the fact that you fought against UPN/SOS. Is that something to be proud of?

Man, it really took cojones to throw your weight around and act like dickheads. Have you ever seen sharks throw seals around in the air for no reason in particular? It's kind of like that, only if sharks could think and were in fact stuck up !@#$%bags.

[Diabloz]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1322777660' post='2858503']
Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you said but a minor clerical note: Fark isn't SF!; they haven't been for a while either.
[/quote]

Yes! I know, i never said they were?

[Diabloz]

[quote name='Baron Flynt' timestamp='1322778099' post='2858510']
Yes, the fact that you fought against UPN/SOS. Is that something to be proud of?

Man, it really took cojones to throw your weight around and act like dickheads. Have you ever seen sharks throw seals around in the air for no reason in particular? It's kind of like that, only if sharks could think and were in fact stuck up !@#$%bags.
[/quote]

Only one phrase to say to you, yes you may of heard it before.

'Do something about it' stop us

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1322778200' post='2858512']
Yes! I know, i never said they were?
[/quote]

Ah alright. As I said I probably misread or misinterpreted what you wrote:

[quote][b]SF a bloc which saved its infra but ruined its reputation[/b], i know everyone here has lost respect for [b]SF[/b], and i applaud UPN (yes the alliance many of you used to laugh at) for having the balls to fight, [b]something RIA or FARK won't have.[/b][/quote]

Bold parts are where I misconstrued your post.

Edited December 1, 2011 by SpacingOutMan

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1322777360' post='2858501']
Why is it funny? What is making you laugh? the fact we fought against UPN/SOS? well atleast we had the balls to do something to keep us entertained.. Unfortunately that would be something quite difficult for you to understand yet again you are in SF a bloc which saved its infra but ruined its reputation, i know everyone here has lost respect for SF, and i applaud UPN (yes the alliance many of you used to laugh at) for having the balls to fight, something RIA or FARK won't have.
[/quote]
Oh, we're very entertained.

[Bill Wallace]

Us old farts struggle sometimes to keep up so pardon me if I ask, is this TOP's war or MK's war?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1322778364' post='2858517']
Us old farts struggle sometimes to keep up so pardon me if I ask, is this TOP's war or MK's war?
[/quote]

An amusing question, but in literal terms, it's TOP/IRON's collective war.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1322777360' post='2858501']
Why is it funny? What is making you laugh? the fact we fought against UPN/SOS? well atleast we had the balls to do something to keep us entertained.. Unfortunately that would be something quite difficult for you to understand yet again you are in SF a bloc which saved its infra but ruined its reputation, i know everyone here has lost respect for SF, and i applaud UPN (yes the alliance many of you used to laugh at) for having the balls to fight, something RIA or FARK won't have.
[/quote]

Its just sort of silly to be like SF TOOK EASY TARGETS, and then have NG wait til SOS had lowered its treaties to attack it, or attacking UPN over negotiations. I can tell your skull is of the softer nature, so i'll spell it out for you. It makes you a hypocrite.

Also, Everyone lost their respect here? Did anyone in your little camp have any to begin with? I don't presume to know what everyone thinks, but I think if we're going to get along fine without another scrub who parrots their chosen line of "COWARDICE". What is your alliance's [i]issue[/i], anyway? I mean, DT, NoR, and mjolnir have something to complain about in regards to SF. I'm sure they'll collect their payment at some point. What the ass did SF [i]ever[/i] do to NG? I'll give you a bit of time to talk to your comrades about it, maybe find out a point where GOD "wronged" Poison Clan. But in all likelihood, its over some trivial reason to give you all an excuse. Maybe someone said something bad about your casualty count.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1322778364' post='2858517']
Us old farts struggle sometimes to keep up so pardon me if I ask, is this TOP's war or MK's war?
[/quote]

Very good question.

It looks like it is TOP's war but people want to use it to make their own war possible.

[Tromp]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1322759544' post='2858250']
while i may do agree with you on this being a multipolar world... that's not the issue here. That would be a better argument if you were talking about someone using non-chaining clauses to avoid joining a war that started three or four chains ago over something they dont care about.
However, in a situation like this... Polar's direct allies have no excuse to not come in (note: i've no idea if RIA is planning to not honor commitments or are just slow as heck.) Polar's allies arent disinterested third parties. Nor is this a non-chaining scenario. To be blunt, IMO there are only two reasons for a polar ally not to have entered. 1) Its part of some stupid convoluted strategy
and they are planning to enter eventually but are delaying it for some reason 2) they want to preserve pixels.
[/quote]
I dunno OsRavan, I'm not from RIA.

All I was saying is that I reject the idea that coalition warfare is the only sort of warfare possible in CN, especially with the political alignments of various (groups of) alliances these days. In cases like this, I believe independent action and/or neutrality becomes a real option.
And in itself, that might also create more exciting political dynamics, as coalitions won't form easily and to the size they used to be in the past, nor will the conclusion of a war be determined after three days or so (or even before the war has started).

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322759828' post='2858253']
Counterpoint:
FOK supported Doomhouse in its most recent war against the NPO, going as far as to declare on their enemies, however small they may have been. Umbrella and MK were the aggressors there and the people you DoWed on could have easily been handled by just about anybody else.
In TOP-IRON's latest escapade to the Arctic Pole, you are supporting the other side, albeit not in a military fashion yet.
What is the difference, if not for treaty lines? It's certainly not the [i]validity of the CB[/i].
[/quote]
Pre-emption can be a legitimate course of action, and in this specific case, I've always seen the DH war on NPO as part of the bigger conflict that was raging on at the time. Which, surprise surprise, was started by VE, PC, iFOK and FOK. So I'd argue DH came in on 'our side', not the other way around.

Second, let me clear this up right away: with regards to you guys, I actually am of the opinion that the CB which TOP+IRON have used is a fair one. I'm just not seeing why I should support either 'side' here. (Those 'sides' defined as Polar and TOP+IRON.) It isn't our war, and we've been very vocal about that, leading to us not giving any of the sides guarantees. Additionally, we made clear to those close to us that we would have liked to see no conflict at all, or perhaps at maximum a limited one (like there is now). Obviously I also have my own opinion on this matter, but the fact is that it's not solely up to me to make a decision in this matter.

What I'm having more trouble with, personally speaking, is how some people who profited most from Grub's action, have turned their backs on others out of sheer opportunism. Some may have had additional reasons, but my point is that the change of various relationships put us in a difficult spot. The goal of it all was clear, and now that this war kicked off people jumped at the opportunity to carry out their own agendas, which would always come at the cost of some of our allies, or FOK itself. That kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged, let alone be rewarded.

In any case, over time, I think FOK has been very consistent. Sure, our surroundings did change, but that's about it.

[Baron Flynt]

[quote name='Diabloz' timestamp='1322778275' post='2858513']
Only one phrase to say to you, yes you may of heard it before.

'Do something about it' stop us
[/quote]

That isn't an answer to anything, you're just defaulting out of the argument.

I'm disappointed.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1322779094' post='2858532']

Second, let me clear this up right away: with regards to you guys, I actually am of the opinion that the CB which TOP+IRON have used is a fair one. I'm just not seeing why I should support either 'side' here. (Those 'sides' defined as Polar and TOP+IRON.) It isn't our war, and we've been very vocal about that, leading to us not giving any of the sides guarantees. Additionally, we made clear to those close to us that we would have liked to see no conflict at all, or perhaps at maximum a limited one (like there is now). (...)

What I'm having more trouble with, personally speaking, is how some people who profited most from Grub's action, have turned their backs on others out of sheer opportunism. (...) That kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged, let alone be rewarded.

[/quote]

[b]QFT[/b]

kudos for you Sir.

[AmbroseIV]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322777508' post='2858502']
In case you haven't noticed, there actually were a slew of minor skirmishes over these past two years that did not involve preempts. They never expanded, however, due to interests of "stopping expansion." I'm sorry that you feel that a preempt is the only way treaties are honored anymore (for any self-respecting alliance, this isn't the case), but it's simply not a trick in our bag right now.
[/quote]


There have always been minor skirmishes, yet it can hardly be denied that preemptive attacks have become more prevalent in past two years. It's not a trend [i]we[/i] established or tried to justify.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1322780066' post='2858549']
There have always been minor skirmishes, yet it can hardly be denied that preemptive attacks have become more prevalent in past two years. It's not a trend [i]we[/i] established or tried to justify.
[/quote]

You say [i]we[/i] established as if you imply [i]my[/i] alliance set the precedent?

As for our justification with the previous one, based on that I think we all should firmly rule out it occurring again anytime soon.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322777508' post='2858502']
In case you haven't noticed, there actually were a slew of minor skirmishes over these past two years that did not involve preempts. They never expanded, however, due to interests of "stopping expansion." I'm sorry that you feel that [b]a preempt is the only way treaties are honored anymore (for any self-respecting alliance, this isn't the case)[/b], but it's simply not a trick in our bag right now.
[/quote]

Considering the previous 2 preempts where by you and the people you're cheering on right now, i take it self respect is in short supply over there?

[quote name='Emperor Whimsical' timestamp='1322778790' post='2858524']
Its just sort of silly to be like SF TOOK EASY TARGETS, and then have NG wait til SOS had lowered its treaties to attack it, or attacking UPN over negotiations. I can tell your skull is of the softer nature, so i'll spell it out for you. It makes you a hypocrite.

Also, Everyone lost their respect here? Did anyone in your little camp have any to begin with? I don't presume to know what everyone thinks, but I think if we're going to get along fine without another scrub who parrots their chosen line of "COWARDICE". What is your alliance's [i]issue[/i], anyway? I mean, DT, NoR, and mjolnir have something to complain about in regards to SF. I'm sure they'll collect their payment at some point. What the ass did SF [i]ever[/i] do to NG? I'll give you a bit of time to talk to your comrades about it, maybe find out a point where GOD "wronged" Poison Clan. But in all likelihood, its over some trivial reason to give you all an excuse. Maybe someone said something bad about your casualty count.
[/quote]

Very good question


Edit:

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322781172' post='2858561']
You say [i]we[/i] established as if you imply [i]my[/i] alliance set the precedent?

As for our justification with the previous one, based on that I think we all should firmly rule out it occurring again anytime soon.
[/quote]

No the ones you're supporting now set the precedent, you just followed in their footsteps

Edited December 1, 2011 by EgoFreaky

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322782302' post='2858580']
Considering the previous 2 preempts where by you and the people you're cheering on right now, i take it self respect is in short supply over there?[/quote]

You should try reading that a little closer. Since I fear you'd deflect again though, I'll spell it out for you: Any self-respecting alliance honors their treaties. I suggest you take a look at those who have already defended Polaris. I'm done arguing this point because of the lovely new RDoAP treaties that Polar makes (Request Defense Optional Aggression), so let's just chalk it up as a systemic difference and move on.



[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322782302' post='2858580']
No the ones you're supporting now set the precedent, you just followed in their footsteps
[/quote]

I'm done talking about preempts, you wont see my alliance taking part in them (despite what you all seem to fear/want).

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322783217' post='2858617']
I'm done talking about preempts, you wont see my alliance taking part in them (despite what you all seem to fear/want).
[/quote]

[img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lucklmWVWo1r5ywl3o1_400.jpg[/img]
He is DONE talking about this issue people.

[welshgazza1992]

Meh, unless their treaty states when they should come to their allies defence, it's up to them. They don't need to rush for anybody but their ally's benefit.

[Denial]

[quote name='Bill Wallace' timestamp='1322778364' post='2858517']
Us old farts struggle sometimes to keep up so pardon me if I ask, is this TOP's war or MK's war?
[/quote]
Of course it's our war. Who do you think controls TOP?

[Shockz]

Why can't we all just [b]fight[/b]...It'll happen eventually under some circumstance or another. The only difference is which side that circumstance favors. If RIA wants to stay out, that's their prerogative; however, lets not pretend (everyone bashing them) that they don't know the implications of not fighting.

I'm confident they'll fight, on their terms or yours, sooner or later.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1322779094' post='2858532']
What I'm having more trouble with, personally speaking, is how [b]Ardus[/b] turned [b]his[/b] back[s]s[/s] on others out of sheer opportunism. Some may have had additional reasons, but my point is that the change of various relationships put us in a difficult spot. The goal of it all was clear, and now that this war kicked off [b]MK[/b] jumped at the opportunity to carry out their own agendas, which would always come at the cost of some of our allies, or FOK itself. That kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged, let alone be rewarded.

In any case, over time, I think FOK has been very consistent. Sure, our surroundings did change, but that's about it.
[/quote]
We know you hate us, Tromp. There's no need to veil it behind my brand of false even-handedness.

[Stormsend]

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322783563' post='2858628']
[img]http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lucklmWVWo1r5ywl3o1_400.jpg[/img]
He is DONE talking about this issue people.
[/quote]
You can't possibly have run out of things to say.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Eh take your time, I've got a sled to finish and tech to receive.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1322788724' post='2858697']
We know you hate us, Tromp. There's no need to veil it behind my brand of false even-handedness.
[/quote]

His even-handedness isn't false; if it's that clear to you that he was talking about you specifically, then it shows just how accurate he is. We all know he speaks the truth, so why beat around the bush? Your alliance mates have long accepted the role of villain ever since NPO members abandoned the persona, and if I say so myself you've done a pretty damn good job of navigating the whole BiPolar situation, especially the acquisition of TOP as an "ally." MK has come out of this whole situation scott-free, so why challenge Tromp for saying you've gotten away with too much? You know it as well as the rest of the world does, that's why alliances like TOP are willing to sell out to you, and you just reap the benefits. I'm not faulting you for it, so why pretend that you don't deserve the ire of guys like Tromp when you know his reasoning is without fault?

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1322783217' post='2858617']

I'm done talking about preempts, you wont see my alliance taking part in them (despite what you all seem to fear/want).
[/quote]

Preempts, just on the politically isolated, check!

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1322790264' post='2858750']
His even-handedness isn't false; if it's that clear to you that he was talking about you specifically, then it shows just how accurate he is.
[/quote]

That GOTTA hurt