iamthey Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) By the book written by Ramirus. Introduction by Tywin. You're a riot.Please explain "by-the-book" warfare? You realize the first major war this world has ever seen (GW1/GPW) involved such a massive pile of nations hitting 3 alliances... I mean, there appears to be like 2 wars where there was not huge piles against alliances... (GWII/GWIII). Unless you go back to prior to GWI in which it was like 1v1. So, someone please explain this "by-the-book" !@#$%^&* that NSO's side keeps pulling out their asses. Imagine two people in a room one of which is blustering and posturing to the other for a non-existent third party. That is this thread. Edited January 8, 2014 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Imagine two people in a room one of which is blustering and posturing to the other for a non-existent third party. That is this thread. this accurately describes the past 7 years of this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 this accurately describes the past 7 years of this world. I'm the 3rd Party :psyduck: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'm the 3rd Party :psyduck: we're all been the 3rd party at one time or another, just interesting how easily it is to simply our world into a sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Please explain "by-the-book" warfare? You realize the first major war this world has ever seen (GW1/GPW) involved such a massive pile of nations hitting 3 alliances... I mean, there appears to be like 2 wars where there was not huge piles against alliances... (GWII/GWIII). Unless you go back to prior to GWI in which it was like 1v1. So, someone please explain this "by-the-book" !@#$%^&* that NSO's side keeps pulling out their asses.Pretty sure there isn't a book anymore if there ever was. War since at least 2010 has been "well, we just wanna do this !@#$ right here and we might as well try something new" Edited January 8, 2014 by Neo Uruk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 What an amusing read of propaganda and misinformation... Before I start I'd like to help some people with this,Reparation - the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to those who have been wronged. Let's be clear here. No one has asked for any reps despite Pacifica telling many people they were being asked for 20 billion in reps. Now I have addressed the "reps" part of their claim lets look at the 20 billion number. NPO has 35 nations who have spent the entire war in peacemode with and average of 12,046 Infra each. While they stay in PM they lose about 9% on their collections until they exit. They still keep 91% and the 9% adds to much less than half of the number they are sprouting. Where this gets amusing is in the fact they are already in PM by choice! They have no objection to PM and they have no issue of denying the use of their aid slots for comrades and allies at war. They have stated many times they may as well stay at war and in PM. So here is where we get to the nub of it all. NPO do not object to PM, nor do they object to using it for months at a time, as long as their allies and enemies are burning while it happens. It's this simple if you like PM so much, stay there! If you really object to PM then leave. In Eq NPO screwed over most of the people who were helping them with this tactic. People were told NPO were going to war and and asked our help. They told us once the war was well under way while everyone else was burning that they were NOT going to be using their bankers. This was wonderful... We were all collectively in there using all of our nations while they made sure at the end they'd be in a strong position at the end. Then when their allies on the other side started taking too much damage, who were already sprouting while that war was still going that Polar was next, they ordered a mass peace out. I say those to you NPO, nice and clear so you don't get it confused any longer. NSO was our target during this war. That same NSO gave it all, and while we still don't have a friendship with NSO, they have earnt some respect. You however are users and are losing more and more of our respect daily. Stop the lies and the !@#$%^&*. Stop telling people you are so hard done by and face up to the fact that many of the people you used are pissed at you. There is no difference if we are at war or the war ends tomorrow for your bankers, not one red cent let alone 20 billion dollars. They will remain in PM either way. The only people affected are the rest of Planet Bob, as usual. Your math is an abysmal failure. As I am in PM, let me educate you. When not in PM, I collect (at just under 9K infra).... just over $12 million a day. In PM, I collect just under $7 million per day. That is a roughly 40% loss, not the 9% you inaccurately portray. More to the point though, why even bother with the term in the 1st place. TOP gov screamed from the mountain tops that they were only here to support Polar's defense. Now suddenly they want to levy a judgement on NPO as to how they chose to fight the war ... over what amounts to 16 nations in an alliance of 300+(at the beginning of the war.) If the war was only about Polar's defense, and that is adequately settled, and if TOP were only here to that end, why the concern for "judging" and punishing 16 NPO nations. Don't get me wrong, I am pleased they have taken this tach, as it finally puts an end to the BS they slung for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) I can only assume that "the message" came from the lips of Farrin. While I cannot fault you for assuming that your government would not lie to you, the fervor with which you regurgitate his word is somewhat sad. However, given the nature of your community---one of which I was a part, long ago---it is not surprising. Redacted to prevent conflict of interest. But watching you suggest that NPO gov is lying to its members, is precious. Edited January 8, 2014 by Rush Sykes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 TOP gov screamed from the mountain tops that they were only here to support Polar's defense. Now suddenly they want to levy a judgement on NPO as to how they chose to fight the war See this is how I know you don't know what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 See this is how I know you don't know what you're talking about. Never have I received such a glowing assurance of being correct in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 See this is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.How is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 How is that? Don't ask him that, answering will just hurt his brain ... and ours more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 How is that? He knows objectively that TOP are not demanding any sort of punishment of NPO. It's funny to see some people here propagate lies, although that's nothing new... and Rush as always displaying to everyone how out of the loop he really is. Which again, is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 TOP are not demanding any sort of punishment of NPO.Well damn, and here I thought I had access to MK forums where we were all discussing the war. At the very least TOP is supporting those who are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Desperation doesn't suit y'all. Well, most of you. Edited January 8, 2014 by IYIyTh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Man, this thread really makes me want to try and push for $20 billion in reps from NPO and force them to keep all nation in the top 40 in PM for 3 months. Not to mention, do the same or similar to NG/NSO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 At the very least TOP is supporting those who are. That extends to the whole of the coalition, UPN included. All alliances involved in the war have pledged a certain level of support, for a wide variety/combination of reasons, be it self interest or a common cause. At the end of the day, there are several alliances who wouldn't mind seeing a blanket white peace agreement if it was solely their decision, but that doesn't change the fact that they still support ( albeit to varying degrees ) the collective interests of the coalition as a whole. After all that is how a coalition works. tl;dr: TOP are not demanding anything from them, and their support is no greater than the support of the vast majority of the alliances involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 That extends to the whole of the coalition, UPN included. All alliances involved in the war have pledged a certain level of support, for a wide variety/combination of reasons, be it self interest or a common cause. At the end of the day, there are several alliances who wouldn't mind seeing a blanket white peace agreement if it was solely their decision, but that doesn't change the fact that they still support ( albeit to varying degrees ) the collective interests of the coalition as a whole. After all that is how a coalition works. tl;dr: TOP are not demanding anything from them, and their support is no greater than the support of the vast majority of the alliances involved.Aye, spot on for the most part. But TOP is a major part of the backbone of the coalition and to suggest that they do not have a large amount of sway in decision-making would be dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 tl;dr: TOP are not demanding anything from them, and their support is no greater than the support of the vast majority of the alliances involved. So if it's not TOP, then who is it? Because Dajobo insists Polar's purpose here is done and they are now just supporting the coalition and that the coalition is who is making the decisions towards what is to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Your math is an abysmal failure. As I am in PM, let me educate you. When not in PM, I collect (at just under 9K infra).... just over $12 million a day. In PM, I collect just under $7 million per day. That is a roughly 40% loss, not the 9% you inaccurately portray. More to the point though, why even bother with the term in the 1st place. TOP gov screamed from the mountain tops that they were only here to support Polar's defense. Now suddenly they want to levy a judgement on NPO as to how they chose to fight the war ... over what amounts to 16 nations in an alliance of 300+(at the beginning of the war.) If the war was only about Polar's defense, and that is adequately settled, and if TOP were only here to that end, why the concern for "judging" and punishing 16 NPO nations. Don't get me wrong, I am pleased they have taken this tach, as it finally puts an end to the BS they slung for months. You would think Polar would know the actual penalties for staying in peace mode during war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 This thread should have ended at the Three Stooges propaganda, that's some good stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 So if it's not TOP, then who is it? Because Dajobo insists Polar's purpose here is done and they are now just supporting the coalition and that the coalition is who is making the decisions towards what is to be seen. Sorry, they've been taken into Federal Whining Protection custody. If we revealed that, they would undoubtedly be subjected to thousands of bad posts and ignorant amateur political commentary. As a coalition, we can't let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) myth talking about ignorant political commentary and bad posts, how rich. Edited January 8, 2014 by Neo Uruk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Aye, spot on for the most part. But TOP is a major part of the backbone of the coalition and to suggest that they do not have a large amount of sway in decision-making would be dishonest. Right. But not going out of their way to make sure that NPO isn't given punitive terms, is not the same as proactively forming or demanding said terms. There's a clear distinction, and that should be acknowledged. So if it's not TOP, then who is it? Because Dajobo insists Polar's purpose here is done and they are now just supporting the coalition and that the coalition is who is making the decisions towards what is to be seen. He's not lying. Just like TOP, NpO are not making any demands either. NpO's objective was to deal with NSO, and that's what they have done. However as I mentioned, the alliances involved in the war entered for a wide variety of reasons, be it self interest or a common cause. There's no pretense that certain alliances got involved to serve their own agenda, as opposed to Polaris'. There isn't one single party to pinpoint to reflect who are keen on it. Let's just say that it's a significant portion of the coalition, which should be self evident, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it any longer. And as coalition partners, we respect that, and will support them. They helped us to further our agenda, and that will be reciprocated. It's coalition warfare. imo: If you want to play the blame game, then you can't concentrate it, as all the alliances are equally as responsible. We all enabled this to happen. Edited January 8, 2014 by Robster83 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Right. But not going out of their way to make sure that NPO isn't given punitive terms, is not the same as proactively forming or demanding said terms. There's a clear distinction, and that should be acknowledged.I can agree to that. This war has been full of misrepresentations, and neither side is innocent of it whether intentional or unintentional. I suppose that could be said of every war, but in this one it seems to be less propaganda and more miscommunicating. Edited January 8, 2014 by Neo Uruk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Right. But not going out of their way to make sure that NPO isn't given punitive terms, is not the same as proactively forming or demanding said terms. There's a clear distinction, and that should be acknowledged.He's not lying. Just like TOP, NpO are not making any demands either. NpO's objective was to deal with NSO, and that's what they have done. However as I mentioned, the alliances involved in the war entered for a wide variety of reasons, be it self interest or a common cause. There's no pretense that certain alliances got involved to serve their own agenda, as opposed to Polaris'. There isn't one single party to pinpoint to reflect who are keen on it. Let's just say that it's a significant portion of the coalition, which should be self evident, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it any longer. And as coalition partners, we respect that, and will support them. They helped us to further our agenda, and that will be reciprocated. It's coalition warfare. imo: If you want to play the blame game, then you can't concentrate it, as all the alliances are equally as responsible. We all enabled this to happen. Just to make sure I understand, are you arguing that every individual alliance on your side should get off scott-free from the usual PR consequences of harsh terms?Because if so, It is a genius idea and I'll take notes.Man, this thread really makes me want to try and push for $20 billion in reps from NPO and force them to keep all nation in the top 40 in PM for 3 months. Not to mention, do the same or similar to NG/NSO. My respect for your coalition would increase by 1000% if you did. Edited January 8, 2014 by Letum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts