janax Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 You are all terrible and should feel bad for how terrible you all are. Current, former, future Rok gov should all be ZIed and forced to join a good alliance for re-education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamind Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327965326' post='2910955'] I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of MK's omniscient (See what I did there. ) sovereignty in comparison to the rest of the world, how it flies in the face of history and how this most recent example is more or less ridiculous and mere dick-waving or a prelude to the rolling of RoK (or hoping for escelation,) something that was probably going to happen either way. But I've already repeated myself enough at this juncture. Have fun everyone. [/quote] I believe I've already shown examples of how similar things have happened in the past and regardless, what does MK members changing AA to hit MHA last war have to do with MK being given permission to strike at a ghost sitting on the RoK AA? And how is it in any way dick-waving or a prelude to rolling RoK when, as said before, they were given permission by the legitimate RoK government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kongo Jack IV Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 No Bob? You guys are stupid.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1327965946' post='2910969'] I believe I've already shown examples of how similar things have happened in the past and regardless, what does MK members changing AA to hit MHA last war have to do with MK being given permission to strike at a ghost sitting on the RoK AA? And how is it in any way dick-waving or a prelude to rolling RoK when, as said before, they were given permission by the legitimate RoK government? [/quote] Just more evidence (not that it was really ever needed,) that MK's standards of AA sovereignty and the like do not resonate well with the standards of virtually the rest of the planet. As for your latter point, it would appear that that permission was granted by a government that is no longer legitimate or had no authority to do what they had done, as evidenced by their ouster as a result. One would think that this would just be peaced out if the aim wasn't to attempt to escalate or attempt to provoke Ragnarok into a fight....or wave appendages around. But that isn't the case, right? Keyboard not co-operating. Edited January 30, 2012 by IYIyTh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamind Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327966421' post='2910977'] Just more evidence (not that it was really ever needed,) that MK's standards of AA sovereignty and the like do not resonate well with the standards of virtually the rest of the planet. [/quote] Since you're virtually the only one arguing that it aren't the standards of the rest of the planet, it would appear that it is the standard and that your point of view is the one not resonating well. [quote]As for your latter appoint, it would appear that that permission was granted by a government that is no longer legitimate or had no authority to do what they had done, as evidenced by their ouster as a result.[/quote] The government was legitimate at the time (no one can dispute that) and the RoK charter grants the emperor complete and total power and as such he had the authority to make the decision. [quote]One would think that this would just be peaced out if the aim wasn't to attempt to escalate or attempt to provoke Ragnarok into a fight....or wave appendages around. But that isn't the case, right? [/quote] One problem with your little theory is that Kait is the one that escalated things by nuking one of the MK members at war with her after the Adel administration had declared that she was a member of the alliance. So, unless I've been misinformed somehow, I do not see how you can claim that MK are the ones guilty of the escalation. I am sure that if the Adel administration had contacted MK prior to Kait nuking an MK member and asked them to stop the attacks they would gladly have done it. Instead they've decided to claim a nation involved in a nuclear war against MK as a member of their alliance. How is that dick-waving by MK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 I hope that in the midst of this, somehow we can establish what the MEMBERS themselves want. Some sort of vote would be best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1327907555' post='2910432'] I think the new GGA just stood up. [/quote] We need a few more coups to reinforce that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1327967045' post='2910982'] Since you're virtually the only one arguing that it aren't the standards of the rest of the planet, it would appear that it is the standard and that your point of view is the one not resonating well. [/quote] You are arguing that every member can be claimed as a member of an alliance even if they do not officially hold the alliance affiliation. It would be as if Xiphosis rescinded his GOD AA to hit TOP and you held GOD accountable. That is preposterous and is certainly not the norm of this planet historically and even now. This situation is only different because MK chooses to make it as such, not because it actually is. This thought, in addition to more evidence brought which is quite relevant when discussing differing views of sovereignty conclusively illustrates a decidedly markedly different view of MK and the rest of the planet, (although to be fair this is more of a recent development rather than a historical outlook by MK.) Not to say MK is wrong or right with that mindset, just that it contrasts with generally accepted rule of law for eons. [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1327967045' post='2910982'] The government was legitimate at the time (no one can dispute that) and the RoK charter grants the emperor complete and total power and as such he had the authority to make the decision. [/quote] A great counterpoint would be that this member was not a member of MK at the time it decided to raid the individual, but accepting that simply is an unacceptable response (for fun,) in context with those who made that decision and as a result were promptly removed from government and/or the alliance, context pervades that this situation should be resolved in other ways. [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1327967045' post='2910982'] One problem with your little theory is that Kait is the one that escalated things by nuking one of the MK members at war with her after the Adel administration had declared that she was a member of the alliance. So, unless I've been misinformed somehow, I do not see how you can claim that MK are the ones guilty of the escalation. I am sure that if the Adel administration had contacted MK prior to Kait nuking an MK member and asked them to stop the attacks they would gladly have done it. Instead they've decided to claim a nation involved in a nuclear war against MK as a member of their alliance. How is that dick-waving by MK? [/quote] From what I can tell Ragnarok as a whole does not agree with the decision that was made by Bob and Joe and their removal was contingent on events during and after making that decision. Again, ignoring the fact that the raider is not an official member of MK per the alliance in the actual DoW, ideally it would be between this individual and RoK to sort out the dispute. As for taking a realistic approach, both are guilty of escalation in that the raid continued after being clearly seen as contrary to the actual legitamate government of RoK, but given the circumstance I don't see why RoK should have to pay MK for someone retaliating against a tech raider. Did you think Kaitlin was just going to ship you all of her tech and allow you to tech raid even if she was not a member of RoK? The decision to taunt and attempt to escalate the situation by those not only in MK is my evidence to appendage waving, as I'm quite sure you could not counter my argument that this situation would just as much be over if MK wanted it to end instead of looking for the chance of escalation. Something something bias something something ad-hominem. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327967720' post='2910990'] You are arguing that every member can be claimed as a member of an alliance even if they do not officially hold the alliance affiliation. It would be as if Xiphosis rescinded his GOD AA to hit TOP and you held GOD accountable.[/quote] The difference is a rescinding. They're making a name change on activity. MK members did not rescind their membership, they engaged in MK activities in a different uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1327967443' post='2910984'] I hope that in the midst of this, somehow we can establish what the MEMBERS themselves want. Some sort of vote would be best. [/quote] The ones who are now back in power were the first to turn tail and run at the first sign of danger. Also i'm on the Rok AA, and there I will remain. You will never make me leave the AA unless i decide to do it on my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1327967911' post='2910999'] The difference is a rescinding. They're making a name change on activity. MK members did not rescind their membership, they engaged in MK activities in a different uniform. [/quote] That's where I disagree that it's Ragnarok's problem. Aside from that, I don't think MK has a beef about a nation being tech-raided or not retaliating against its attacker. That's what you get for tech-raiding. That's aside from the fact that Ragnarok actually does not view the decision made by Bob as being legitimate, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1327967443' post='2910984'] I hope that in the midst of this, somehow we can establish what the MEMBERS themselves want. Some sort of vote would be best. [/quote] It appears the only people really upset about the transition of power are those who were removed or those whose alliances benefitted from the leadership of those whom were removed. I have not really seen any Ragnarok member state dissent towards this opinion, although I'm sure many would love to keep the entire situation as it should be, in house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1327965267' post='2910953'] No one has that good of a memory. [/quote] I think it was only 5. You could make the argument for six since I went to IAA twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1327967911' post='2910999'] The difference is a rescinding. They're making a name change on activity. MK members did not rescind their membership, they engaged in MK activities in a different uniform. [/quote] ... and to follow this up, at least in this case, a different uniform which was [i]clearly and identifiable part of MK[/i]. Our members are free to drop to the AA 'The Hive' and they're still members, for example. MK do pull some slightly shady things with AAs sometimes but this really isn't one of them. Anyone who wants to seriously claim that 'Biodad Kingdom' wasn't an obvious affiliate of 'Mushroom Kingdom' at the time those attacks were launched is either an idiot or bending the truth to try to score political points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgazza1992 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1327968047' post='2911004'] The ones who are now back in power were the first to turn tail and run at the[b] first sign of danger. [/b] Also i'm on the Rok AA, and there I will remain. You will never make me leave the AA unless i decide to do it on my own. [/quote] Edit: Joe, could you query me on irc? lol Edited January 31, 2012 by welshgazza1992 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='welshgazza1992' timestamp='1327969323' post='2911030'] You're mistaken...The first sign of danger was Bob becoming Emperor, I didn't leave then. To be fair, I thought, you as his regent would have some kind of calming effect on him. When we left, you and Bob had completely screwed the alliance's core beliefs and values. We came back so we could help bring back the alliance... RoK's internal problems are all down to yourself and Ilyani. [/quote] Glad to see you're still around. I haven't seen you in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='welshgazza1992' timestamp='1327969323' post='2911030'] You're mistaken...The first sign of danger was Bob becoming Emperor, I didn't leave then. To be fair, I thought, you as his regent would have some kind of calming effect on him. When we left, you and Bob had completely screwed the alliance's core beliefs and values. We came back so we could help bring back the alliance... RoK's internal problems are all down to yourself and Ilyani. [/quote] See, something here doesn't add up. Rok's core belief is to hell and back, but everyone just bailed. Adel was 1/3 of the RC instead of standing up and saying this isn't right, she fled crying to DDL who took the boards down. So instead of trying to stop us "tyrants" she ran. Not only did she run but she made her resignation public (available to EVERYONE who came to the boards) and mass PM'd it to the members. Everyone (with a few notable exceptions) came back when the forums went down, but if it's mine and bob's fault, why are they still losing a ton of NS and hiding in Peace mode? So much for those core beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshgazza1992 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327969495' post='2911035'] Glad to see you're still around. I haven't seen you in a long time. [/quote] Yeah, have been lurking behind the scenes for a while. Suppose, I'll be seeing a lot more of you... considering how you're the new emperor and all... [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/awesome.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='welshgazza1992' timestamp='1327969805' post='2911040'] Yeah, have been lurking behind the scenes for a while. Suppose, I'll be seeing a lot more of you... considering how you're the new emperor and all... [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/awesome.gif[/img] [/quote] Looking forward to working with you and taking down the Slurper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1327969653' post='2911038'] See, something here doesn't add up. Rok's core belief is to hell and back, but everyone just bailed. Adel was 1/3 of the RC instead of standing up and saying this isn't right, she fled crying to DDL who took the boards down. So instead of trying to stop us "tyrants" she ran. Not only did she run but she made her resignation public (available to EVERYONE who came to the boards) and mass PM'd it to the members. Everyone (with a few notable exceptions) came back when the forums went down, but if it's mine and bob's fault, why are they still losing a ton of NS and hiding in Peace mode? So much for those core beliefs. [/quote] Shhhhh, that disproves the theory that you and Bob were the problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1327969847' post='2911041'] Looking forward to working with you and taking down the Slurper. [/quote] A few Nukes should fix a standard slurper infestation... whatever a slurper is [b]NUKES. FIX. EVERYTHING.[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamind Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1327967720' post='2910990'] You are arguing that every member can be claimed as a member of an alliance even if they do not officially hold the alliance affiliation. It would be as if Xiphosis rescinded his GOD AA to hit TOP and you held GOD accountable.[/quote] No, that would more or less be the exact opposite of this situation. A more accurate analogy would be Xiph rescinding his membership, hitting TOP and then GOD going 'oh, we still consider him a member'. I can assure you that we would most definitely hold GOD responsible in that case since they just had a member attack us. Just as MK is justified in holding RoK responsible for their member nuking a member of MK. [quote]That is preposterous and is certainly not the norm of this planet historically and even now. This situation is only different because MK chooses to make it as such, not because it actually is. This thought, in addition to more evidence brought which is quite relevant when discussing differing views of sovereignty conclusively illustrates a decidedly markedly different view of MK and the rest of the planet, (although to be fair this is more of a recent development rather than a historical outlook by MK.) Not to say MK is wrong or right with that mindset, just that it contrasts with generally accepted rule of law for eons.[/quote] Again, no. Members of MK changed to an AA that was clearly affiliated with MK and attacked. The government of MK has at no time claimed that they weren't members of MK, in fact they've stated repeatedly that they are in fact members of MK and have been throughout this entire thing. RoK on the other hand declared Kait a ghost and then once the leadership situation in RoK changed decided reactivate Kait's membership, despite her being at war with members of MK. If anyone is going against the norm of planet Bob, it is RoK, by accepting a member at war and then expecting not to be held responsible for said members actions. [quote]A great counterpoint would be that this member was not a member of MK at the time it decided to raid the individual, but accepting that simply is an unacceptable response (for fun,) in context with those who made that decision and as a result were promptly removed from government and/or the alliance, context pervades that this situation should be resolved in other ways.[/quote] The AA they held when they attacked were clearly affiliated with MK and the government of MK has stated time and time again that they were, are and continue to be members of MK. There was never any confusion about that and thus your point is invalid. [quote]From what I can tell Ragnarok as a whole does not agree with the decision that was made by Bob and Joe and their removal was contingent on events during and after making that decision.[/quote] That still doesn't matter. At the time the decision was made, Bob and Joe were the rightful rulers of RoK and had the authority, under the RoK charter, to make the decision they made. That elements within RoK later decided to disregard their charter and take over the alliance doesn't effect the legitimacy of Bob and Joe's decision. [quote]Again, ignoring the fact that the raider is not an official member of MK per the alliance in the actual DoW, ideally it would be between this individual and RoK to sort out the dispute.[/quote] Except that isn't a fact. The fact is that they are, were and continue to be members of MK and there has never been any doubt about that. [quote]As for taking a realistic approach, both are guilty of escalation in that the raid continued after being clearly seen as contrary to the actual legitamate government of RoK, but given the circumstance I don't see why RoK should have to pay MK for someone retaliating against a tech raider. Did you think Kaitlin was just going to ship you all of her tech and allow you to tech raid even if she was not a member of RoK? [/quote] First of all, the government is not legitimate. They might be in charge of RoK, but to be legitimate they would actually have had to be put in charge under the stipulations of the RoK charter, they weren't and therefore they are not legitimate. Secondly, RoK went against the norm by accepting a nation at war, thereby making any action she takes their responsibility. But even if we ignore that, the fact is that tech raid targets that retaliate with nuclear force are often met with conditions they have to meet before being allowed peace, so MK asking for something in return for letting Kait go, is not uncommon. It was the Adel administrations decision to grant Kait membership while she was at war and as such the responsibility is theirs. [quote]The decision to taunt and attempt to escalate the situation by those not only in MK is my evidence to appendage waving, as I'm quite sure you could not counter my argument that this situation would just as much be over if MK wanted it to end instead of looking for the chance of escalation. Something something bias something something ad-hominem. etc. [/quote] Of course it would be over if MK wanted it to be over. But the terms under which Kait/RoK wants it to be over aren't acceptable to MK and therefore it isn't over. That doesn't mean that MK doesn't want it to be over, that just means that they don't want to allow a weaker party that has wronged them to get away with it without paying for the damages caused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 [quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1327970193' post='2911049'] A few Nukes should fix a standard slurper infestation... whatever a slurper is [b]NUKES. FIX. EVERYTHING.[/b] [/quote] Unfortunately, the infra hugging slurper is out of my range. I'm looking forward to watching my little rokklings destroy him though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 It's obvious that Ragnarok is in a supine position and that MK's members are at war with one of RoK's members. Ghost or not, what is RoK going to be able to do about it? Yes, it can support its members caught in raids, but aside from NATO, who else is going to step up to defend RoK from aggression? RoK's membership at present is a free-fire zone waiting to happen. MK's members adopt clever AAs. We all know this. I see Blacky and Sandwich Controversy at war with a nation under the Ragnarok AA: it matters not if the person is ghosting if the Ragnarok government itself does not move to halt the raid militarily or diplomatically. If MK demands reparations, it would only be because of Ragnarok's poor negotiating stance. MK's members aren't idiots. It's not like they accidentally attacked TOP, Umbrella, or Nordreich. They hit an AA that was in confusion and figured they could get something out of it. The question now isn't "how did this happen?" but, "why isn't more of this happening?" My supposition is that, so long as MK doesn't interfere with other alliances that want to take a whack at Ragnarok, those alliances won't dispute the legitimacy of MK's actions against the nation of Kastay. Should Ragnarok's government suddenly produce a treaty with VE, TOP, IRON, Umbrella, and Non Grata, I suppose some re-thinking of the diplomatic calculus would be in order. I think the smart money, though, is on RoK getting rolled hard, with MK's actions against Kastay being the opening act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Joe Stupid' timestamp='1327969653' post='2911038'] See, something here doesn't add up. Rok's core belief is to hell and back, but everyone just bailed. Adel was 1/3 of the RC instead of standing up and saying this isn't right, she fled crying to DDL who took the boards down. So instead of trying to stop us "tyrants" she ran. Not only did she run but she made her resignation public (available to EVERYONE who came to the boards) and mass PM'd it to the members. Everyone (with a few notable exceptions) came back when the forums went down, but if it's mine and bob's fault, why are they still losing a ton of NS and hiding in Peace mode? So much for those core beliefs. [/quote] Actualy I stayed through the entire thing, so mabye edit that out. Now you are just trying to distract from your own mistakes. You knew that RoK would not support your actions and those that stayed didnt even support you. I tried to have faith in you and bob until you spoke of things that no RoKer would ever think of, you know what I am speaking of. Just give it up, you may think your the boss, but not one RoKer wants you to be so you arent. Just move on, every alliance with this recent drama would continue to lose NS for a little while. Just move on. Edited January 31, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts