Martyrdom

[Unknown Smurf]

When many people think of martyrdom in context of this realm they think of going rogue, but I come to propose to you a different scenario. Any nation can go rogue; in the long term the damage they cause is just a drop in the proverbial bucket. In order to truly do damage one must get many other nations to declare war -- alliances even.

If by doing some action, achieving some quest even, you could [u]POTENTIALLY[/u] take down the alliance you "hate" at the expense of your nation (ZI list potentially) would you do it? Why?

A few months ago I was given this opportunity, as a few of you know, and I didn't take it. I didn't see the point, not insofar as I thought my own nation to be above the objective but that I did not think that it would garuntee a victory. Some would say that even though it wasn't garunteed, the attempt was worth it, I am not of that mindset, are you?

[Igumen]

A martyr is a witness, and in the context of this realm or any other the ultimate witness to a faith or to the truth is death. Therefore I disagree that "going rogue" is martyrdom, unless it is done as a witness to some truth or faith greater than the nation itself. Even then, the "message" being proclaimed in the name of "going rogue" is usually cheapened by committing an act of suicide by attacking others first. True martyrdom, exemplified by Jesus Christ, Lord of this cyberverse and every other, is one that suffers death in the name of the truth, but does not cause it, or even seek to fight back.

This is true martyrdom. Anything else is just roguery or suicide.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Igumen' timestamp='1351885158' post='3047727']
A martyr is a witness, and in the context of this realm or any other the ultimate witness to a faith or to the truth is death. Therefore I disagree that "going rogue" is martyrdom, unless it is done as a witness to some truth or faith greater than the nation itself. Even then, the "message" being proclaimed in the name of "going rogue" is usually cheapened by committing an act of suicide by attacking others first. True martyrdom, exemplified by Jesus Christ, Lord of this cyberverse and every other, is one that suffers death in the name of the truth, but does not cause it, or even seek to fight back.

This is true martyrdom. Anything else is just roguery or suicide.
[/quote]

Then call me CN's Jesus.

Check the guy below's war and aid slots. [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=44623"]http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=44623[/url]

Then take a look at this: [url="http://i46.tinypic.com/2ev4742.png"]http://i46.tinypic.c...m/2ev4742.png [/url]

Thy kingdom come MK.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Unknown Smurf

[Isaac MatthewII]

MK is horrible, I concur.

[Igumen]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1351898639' post='3047796']
Then call me CN's Jesus.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ is CN's Jesus, just as He is the Savior of all peoples.

You are CN's....... well, that sentence has yet to be completed. That's probably why you feel the need to start threads like this, because you are not yet confident in your identity, and look for the approval of others. But, no, Unknown Smurf, validation from fallen men and women will bring you nothing of lasting value, and seeking their attention through the creation of drama will bring even less.


OOC: Did you use to be a Mormon or are you a Mormon now? Sorry for the nosiness, but the second screen-shot shows that http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net is one of the pages you're looking at.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Igumen

[infinite citadel]

It's already being handled with the respective governments.

[Ogaden]

It shows that at least one MK nation is secretly aiding the rogue at war with NPO and Fark at the moment.

GOONS will no doubt take a principled stand and declare war on MK within the hour.

[Ardus]

The Mushroom Kingdom does not condone or support the rogue action by Avitus, nor does it tolerate any support provided to the nation DESU DESU DESU. We will of course work with the New Pacific Order through the appropriate channels to recompense any damages suffered as a result of Greater Finland's unsanctioned actions, as well as ferret out any other nations, members of the Kingdom or otherwise, who may have contributed to this rogue action.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1351900804' post='3047819']
The Mushroom Kingdom does not condone or support the rogue action by Avitus, nor does it tolerate any support provided to the nation DESU DESU DESU. We will of course work with the New Pacific Order through the appropriate channels to recompense any damages suffered as a result of Greater Finland's unsanctioned actions, as well as ferret out any other nations, members of the Kingdom or otherwise, who may have contributed to this rogue action.
[/quote]

What a pile of bull. The only thing you regret is getting caught.
Avitus probably still has MK member access like the special mask you had for ZoomZoomZoom on your boards, and is boasting about his roguery as we speak.
I bet MK was spy slot filling Avitus so noone could gather intel.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Ogaden

[Ardus]

On an unrelated note: Smurf, baby, when you're going to put up a thread about us, don't try to dress it up with some neutral-sounding OP. Just get to the point.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1351901934' post='3047832']
On an unrelated note: Smurf, baby, when you're going to put up a thread about us, don't try to dress it up with some neutral-sounding OP. Just get to the point.
[/quote]

But Baby how will I catch you back-tracking without hiding my agenda? We both know you're smarter than that. If what you stated above (quoted below) is what you believe, then why didn't you, nor anyone else in MK, agree with me in the other topic where I spoke of how governments should only be held accountable for their actions, and not the entire membership?

[size=2]Seriously though I was considering building up to spy on the guy because my nation is too small, hence the OP, I wasn't sure if spying on him was worth it because I wasn't 100% sure if it was him sending the aid though it was a safe bet.[/size]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1351900804' post='3047819']
The Mushroom Kingdom does not condone or support the rogue action by Avitus, nor does it tolerate any support provided to the nation DESU DESU DESU. We will of course work with the New Pacific Order through the appropriate channels to recompense any damages suffered as a result of Greater Finland's unsanctioned actions, as well as ferret out any other nations, members of the Kingdom or otherwise, who may have contributed to this rogue action.
[/quote]

EDIT: Grammar

Edited November 3, 2012 by Unknown Smurf

[infinite citadel]

[quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1351901065' post='3047823']
What a pile of bull. The only thing you regret is getting caught.
Avitus probably still has MK member access like the special mask you had for ZoomZoomZoom on your boards, and is boasting about his roguery as we speak.
I bet MK was spy slot filling Avitus so noone could gather intel.
[/quote]

Wrong on all accounts. The only thing I regret is having members in my alliance that are stupid enough to aid in the first place. Avitus doesn't have any special mask and will not receive our non-member "community" mask until he deletes his nation or is able to rejoin upon obtaining peace with NPO and Sparta.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1351902569' post='3047839']But Baby how will I catch you back-tracking without hiding my agenda? We both know you're smarter than that. If what you stated above (quoted below) is what you believe, then why didn't you, nor anyone else in MK, agree with me in the other topic where I spoke of how governments should only be held accountable for their actions, and not the entire membership?[/quote]

Whether a government should pay for the transgressions of individual members is contingent on whether it wishes to retain individual members. If it wishes to keep a member, it may offer compensation or, if it feels strongly enough, go to war in that individual's defense. If its desire to keep the member is so diminished that it is outweighed by the costs of paying for the nation's error (whatever form those costs may take), then it may choose to release the nation and wash its hands of the issue.

If any of the other 32 MK nations you were looking at are in on this, I'd appreciate it if you just went ahead and let me know. Aside from that I am very busy, I'm worried your martyrdom will kick in before you bother to do so.

EDIT: Also, you didn't "hide" your agenda. You dropped it by post #2. I might get it if you gambled on this thread getting to page 3 or 4, or if you took the Charles Stuart route of quietly waiting for an opening to fire a barb, but this is silly.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Ardus

[Merrie Melodies]

As much as I dislike MK this really is much ado about nothing, does an alliance exist that hasn't had a member or two go off reservation now and then.
ITT Unknown Smurf trying to set a standard no alliance can live by.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1351903426' post='3047845']
Whether a government should pay for the transgressions of individual members is contingent on whether it wishes to retain individual members. If it wishes to keep a member, it may offer compensation or, if it feels strongly enough, go to war in that individual's defense. If its desire to keep the member is so diminished that it is outweighed by the costs of paying for the nation's error (whatever form those costs may take), then it may choose to release the nation and wash its hands of the issue.
[/quote]

So the decision is in the hands of the government members of the party that inflicted the damage? If, say.. CSN didn't want to defend the person who continued attacking Dave93 in the most recent global war, they would be given that opportunity? Please. We both know that you are only taking this stance now that it is MK on the wrong side of things.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111469"]http://forums.cybern...howtopic=111469[/url]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' timestamp='1351903657' post='3047848']
As much as I dislike MK this really is much ado about nothing, does an alliance exist that hasn't had a member or two go off reservation now and then.
ITT Unknown Smurf trying to set a standard no alliance can live by.
[/quote]
If that is what you believe, so be it. But know that there are multiple MK members sending secret aid to this rogue. This is beyond a member or two going off the reservation, its deliberate and its consistently happening according to members of YOUR government:

<Tronix> it is not the first time.. there is a list.

EDIT: Also to address the latter part of your statement, how many times have you had an incident of a rogue being secretly aided by multiple members of the same alliance? I cannot think of a single incident.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Unknown Smurf

[Ardus]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1351904916' post='3047857']
So the decision is in the hands of the government members of the party that inflicted the damage? If, say.. CSN didn't want to defend the person who continued attacking Dave93 in the most recent global war, they would be given that opportunity? Please. We both know that you are only taking this stance now that it is MK on the wrong side of things.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111469"]http://forums.cybern...howtopic=111469[/url][/quote]
I don't know, I'd have to cross that bridge when I got to it. However, I doubt CSN would have been willing to excommunicate Gibson.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1351903426' post='3047845']
[b]Whether a government should pay for the transgressions of individual members is contingent on whether it wishes to retain individual members.[/b] If it wishes to keep a member, it may offer compensation or, if it feels strongly enough, go to war in that individual's defense. If its desire to keep the member is so diminished that it is outweighed by the costs of paying for the nation's error (whatever form those costs may take), then it may choose to release the nation and wash its hands of the issue.

If any of the other 32 MK nations you were looking at are in on this, I'd appreciate it if you just went ahead and let me know. Aside from that I am very busy, I'm worried your martyrdom will kick in before you bother to do so.

EDIT: Also, you didn't "hide" your agenda. You dropped it by post #2. I might get it if you gambled on this thread getting to page 3 or 4, or if you took the Charles Stuart route of quietly waiting for an opening to fire a barb, but this is silly.
[/quote]

I'm going to differ with the bolded sentence and say that it's up to the wider community. Holding MK accountable though would not be normal convention though provided MK indeed was not aware of it.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1351905379' post='3047858']
I don't know, I'd have to cross that bridge when I got to it. However, I doubt CSN would have been willing to excommunicate Gibson.
[/quote]

Requia was the one who nuked, just a member (at the time). Don't try to put it on Gibson. Iirc, Gibson didn't attack until the day after the peace offer was sent, also known as the day MK declared war on the entire CSN due to that nuke.

[ooc]last post until tomorrow, good luck on your exam[/ooc]

[King Wally]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1351898639' post='3047796']
Then call me CN's Jesus.

Check the guy below's war and aid slots. [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=44623"]http://www.cybernati...Nation_ID=44623[/url]

Then take a look at this: [url="http://i46.tinypic.com/2ev4742.png"]http://i46.tinypic.c...m/2ev4742.png [/url]

Thy kingdom come MK.
[/quote]

Straight up CB right there... certainly a better one then "everything must die", "camtin demands it", or "lol save dave"

Just add this to the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=111819&st=0"][i]!@#$ we got away with[/i] list[/url] I guess.

Edited November 3, 2012 by King Wally

[Aeros]

This thread interests me.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Aeros

[Roadie]

Perhaps then, Aeros, MK is not in control of it's members and therefore constitutes a "Rogue Alliance"?

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Edit: Hrmmm..... I think the post I replied to was edited. This post no longer makes sense. You're all welcome.[/font][/color]

Edited November 3, 2012 by Roadie

[Roadie]

Edit: Double post.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Roadie

[Aeros]

Since someone responded, I guess I might as well come out. I am interested as to how MK can explain 5 nations going off the reservation at the same time.

[Unknown Smurf]

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1351909592' post='3047885']
Since someone responded, I guess I might as well come out. I am interested as to how MK can explain 5 nations going off the reservation at the same time.
[/quote]

Just to clarify not all 5 of the aid offers were from MK from what I gather.

[flak attack]

So far as we know, there was only one offer sent by an MK nation.