Jump to content

Hearts Of Iron Are Broken, II Of Them


MCRABT

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1353012054' post='3052950']

And which proverbial ship might be sinking?

What many call a "tough" but "necessary" and "right" decision merits, at best, only one of those monikers. This was a decision resulting from a conscious choice from a number of options, a choice subsequently acted upon in a direct manner that resulted in the simple and speedy elimination of this tie. Tough implies reservation, and I see none. Necessary implies it was involuntary, it was very much voluntary. Of the many descriptors offered, only "right" fits, and only insofar as your decision is consistent with your desires and not, as Schatt so often complains of in regard to treaties, based on a delusion that all competing policies might be reconciled.

Good luck to you, gentlemen.
[/quote]

Actually, necessary implies need. It was a choice that was needed. Which brings me to:


Lol what? An involuntary decision? There is no such thing. A decision is a choice between two (or more) options. Involuntary means you had no choice. It's impossible to not have a choice and have a choice at the same time. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

Edited by Omniscient1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 483
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1353012054' post='3052950']
And which proverbial ship might be sinking?

What many call a "tough" but "necessary" and "right" decision merits, at best, only one of those monikers. This was a decision resulting from a conscious choice from a number of options, a choice subsequently acted upon in a direct manner that resulted in the simple and speedy elimination of this tie. Tough implies reservation, and I see none. Necessary implies it was involuntary, it was very much voluntary. Of the many descriptors offered, only "right" fits, and only insofar as your decision is consistent with your desires and not, as Schatt so often complains of in regard to treaties, based on a delusion that all competing policies might be reconciled.

Good luck to you, gentlemen.
[/quote]

Yours.

I'm glad to know you have such insights into the IRON decision-making process. You're full of crap if you think canceling our oldest, and for a long time closest, tie was anything but tough. Even at the membership level, where there are less personal ties, this was a very tough pill to swallow. Well, not for me personally. I was overjoyed to let TOP walk this idiotic road by themselves. But then, I've only been in IRON a few months and have my own preconceived notions of TOP and of you. For most of the others this was not easy. From talking to people in Council, who generally have more friends in TOP than the average IRON member does, I gather that it was only harder for them.

Such a strict definition of "necessary" is rather silly. Of course it was a voluntary decision, but the divergence of our path and our values from those of TOP made it a necessary one if those were not to be compromised.

Semantics aside, it was most definitely the right decision, and one that could not have come soon enough for my liking.

Have fun, TOP!

-Bama

Edited by BamaBuc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1353012054' post='3052950']
And which proverbial ship might be sinking?

What many call a "tough" but "necessary" and "right" decision merits, at best, only one of those monikers. This was a decision resulting from a conscious choice from a number of options, a choice subsequently acted upon in a direct manner that resulted in the simple and speedy elimination of this tie. Tough implies reservation, and I see none. Necessary implies it was involuntary, it was very much voluntary. Of the many descriptors offered, only "right" fits, and only insofar as your decision is consistent with your desires and not, as Schatt so often complains of in regard to treaties, based on a delusion that all competing policies might be reconciled.

Good luck to you, gentlemen.
[/quote]
do you not remember GW2, do you not remember Karma? you stay on top for so long and then you fall, do you genuinely believe you can do what Pacifica could not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1353001031' post='3052879']
Trite and doubtful.
[/quote]

I'm not sure of exactly what you're getting at. It is not allowed for me to write simply "goodbye" or "farewell" on these forums, so I picked a two-word variation of those sentiments. In retrospect, I suppose I could have said "Goodbye, farewell." I am indeed somewhat hurt at how we were treated in this situation---perhaps this feeling is especially poignant for me, having interacted with IRON at the government level more extensively than anyone else in TOP over the life of the treaty---but my precise feelings on the matter are private and will remain within the usual private channels. I'm sure you understand.

Edited by Crymson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1353028187' post='3053085']
do you not remember GW2, do you not remember Karma? you stay on top for so long and then you fall, do you genuinely believe you can do what Pacifica could not?
[/quote]
You're kidding yourself if you think the situations are comparable.

Regardless, not really the place for this debate so I'll leave it at that.

I hope that TOP and IRON both find what they're looking for.

VVVV We're not so bad... once you get to know us VVVV

Edited by Sardonic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1353035473' post='3053165']
You're kidding yourself if you think the situations are comparable.

Regardless, not really the place for this debate so I'll leave it at that.

I hope that TOP and IRON both find what they're looking for.
[/quote]
You're kidding yourself if you think you can take on the mantle of "the bad guy" and not eventually have to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1353032430' post='3053130']
You underestimate the reaches of Bros.

[size=2](Relax, its a joke)[/size]
[/quote]

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1353034540' post='3053155']
Ok, I laughed.
[/quote]

x 2! :laugh:



[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1353035473' post='3053165']
You're kidding yourself if you think the situations are comparable.
[/quote]

... I'd be pretty interested to hear your reasoning behind this statement :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1353035473' post='3053165']
VVVV We're not so bad... once you get to know us VVVV
[/quote]
You know, I can't argue with you here. Out of everyone in both DH and CnG, I think I like GOONS the most.........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for someone horribly out of touch this is surprisingly. This is arguably the most game defining treaty of the last 3 years given how it shaped the battlefield of Karma and its political aftermath, how it resulted in Bi-Polar, and its subsequent initiative of the Grudge War. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and think back to the political scene I knew months ago and I'm going to assume this is the final line drawn between a Duckroll/NPO vs DH showdown. Should be fun. SF and XX will inevitably piggy back on DR/NPO's side just for the chance to hit DH. Even if DH is somehow defeated I can only hope that DR and NPO will roll SF/XX after all is said and done for good measure.

What a shame to see this treaty die

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1353035473' post='3053165']
You're kidding yourself if you think the situations are comparable.


[/quote]

I agree, it is very silly to compare DH's to NPO. One of the aforementioned entities shaped this realm's politics permanently and the other is just a very cheap knock off.

Edited by Charles Stuart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1353071289' post='3053299']
I agree, it is very silly to compare DH's to NPO. One of the aforementioned entities shaped this realm's politics permanently and the other is just a very cheap knock off.
[/quote]

Hahahahaha, yea that made me laugh. Made in Taiwan with lead paint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1353012054' post='3052950']
And which proverbial ship might be sinking?

What many call a "tough" but "necessary" and "right" decision merits, at best, only one of those monikers. This was a decision resulting from a conscious choice from a number of options, a choice subsequently acted upon in a direct manner that resulted in the simple and speedy elimination of this tie. Tough implies reservation, and I see none. Necessary implies it was involuntary, it was very much voluntary. Of the many descriptors offered, only "right" fits, and only insofar as your decision is consistent with your desires and not, as Schatt so often complains of in regard to treaties, based on a delusion that all competing policies might be reconciled.

Good luck to you, gentlemen.
[/quote]

You make a fair and partially valid point about language and how it is employed within the political game. Sure there is often a tension between the manifest and latent meaning of anything, more so in political settings than anywhere else, but I don't quite understand what it is you are trying to accomplish by introducing such a critique here. Do you believe that by pedantically highlighting the ironies that underpin the banal customary language of politics, the recipients of your thoughts will come to some kind of radical enlightenment- or is this simply an attempt at transcendence? That by deconstructing mundane commentary you are elevating yourself above the plebeian mentalities abound- possibly extracting at least a semblance of self satisfaction out of an otherwise disconcerting state of affairs? If it is the latter then by all means proceed, I would not deny what I myself have scummed to in the past, but let's not labor under the delusion of the former. People say such things not because they really believe it was a tough decision, it was involuntary, or it was somehow morally sanctioned - or perhaps they do, but more likely these are just emotive expressions of underlying sentiment and nothing more. "Sad but necessary", "tough decision," "unfortunate but inevitable" and so forth merely provide a veneer to jubilant affirmation, which is both inoffensive and palatable to all parties.The forms dictate that we ought to part on good terms and so what was a cut and dry strategic decision has to look labored, deliberative, and accidental. It is a semantic game we play and ultimately a way for those involved to avoid or protect others from uncomfortable humiliations while minimizing unproductive resentments. However, I doubt you of all people, need me to tell you this. I only intervene out of empathy on the off chance that my assumptions about you are wrong, in which case your error would be to assume that action in this world is in anyway contingent to language. (Though considering you have made an entire enterprise out of demonstrating the inverse- I imagine such an inconsistency would be too bold for even you).

That being said, since it seems to be inferred, I put the question to you: would you really prefer to face the alternative, that is the mantra everything.must.die, to this farcical but ultimately impotent forum for discourse? Surely even in its most degenerate moments this dance of formal struggle and tension is far more interesting than the monotonousness mechanics of war alone? While it is true that we all make a business of rejecting and criticizing the mindlessness of this venue, it remains to be seen whether or not there is in fact a superior paradigm in which to shift.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1353031561' post='3053116']
I am indeed somewhat hurt at how we were treated in this situation
[/quote]

TOP's actions the past few months have been pissing off more of your allies than just IRON and I know you know that so how you're shocked is beyond me.

Edited by Rogal Dorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1353071289' post='3053299']
I agree, it is very silly to compare DH's to NPO. One of the aforementioned entities shaped this realm's politics permanently and the other is just a very cheap knock off.
[/quote]

Them is fightin' words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things change and a lot of times change is not easy but often it is necessary as stagnation is death.

Good luck to both parties o/

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1353045230' post='3053241']
Well for someone horribly out of touch this is surprisingly. This is arguably the most game defining treaty of the last 3 years given how it shaped the battlefield of Karma and its political aftermath, how it resulted in Bi-Polar, and its subsequent initiative of the Grudge War. I'm going to take a stab in the dark and think back to the political scene I knew months ago and I'm going to assume this is the final line drawn between a Duckroll/NPO vs DH showdown. Should be fun. SF and XX will inevitably piggy back on DR/NPO's side just for the chance to hit DH. Even if DH is somehow defeated I can only hope that DR and NPO will roll SF/XX after all is said and done for good measure.

What a shame to see this treaty die
[/quote]Some say the NPO is still "irrelevant" so we could not possibly be a part of such a war :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...