Terminator Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 It is? Oh, never mind, then. :rolleyes: Its fairly simple, I don't see why people stress about how other people play the game, if you don't like it take action against it, not make post that they just laugh at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted January 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Its fairly simple, I don't see why people stress about how other people play the game, if you don't like it take action against it, not make post that they just laugh at A bit ironic wouldn't you say? One could argue Walford/Polar is just playing the 'game' their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorback05 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 A bit ironic wouldn't you say? One could argue Walford/Polar is just playing the 'game' their way. By crying? If so, Can we add Unknown Smurf to the list? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 You and your empty-souled leaders can continue to send pawns our way to do your dirty work and in the end all it will garnish for you is more loathing. You can lash out at those better than you and try to get some satisfaction by the damage you can cause, because you and your ilk cannot create anything. No matter how much damage you inflict, you cannot beat from Polaris that your host of nobodies lacks and always will lack: honor, courage, integrity, virtue. Funny how much that sounds like Tywin. Parasties vs Producers all over again xD The self-rightouness of this alliance, which sleeps in bed with the same evils that they preach against, is just so cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walford Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Funny how much that sounds like Tywin. Parasties vs Producers all over again xD The self-rightouness of this alliance, which sleeps in bed with the same evils that they preach against, is just so cute. We're just the same as you? Now you're getting nasty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Eh, I wouldn't say they don't play politics at all. It's more that they're trying to play an entirely different brand of politics. Eventually, barring the world turning to that specific brand of politics, support will run out. Not sure why you think you can dictate to us (or anyone) how to run our alliances, and how to engage in the world of politics.So by all means, keep on wasting resources on us and see what it gets you. So far, a lot of land and tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walford Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Not sure why you think you can dictate to us (or anyone) how to run our alliances, and how to engage in the world of politics. Nobody is trying to dictate anything, but expect there to be consequences that you might not expect. When you beat and loot from enough people and make others suffer the damage as you use them as pawns, it can only go on for so long. So far, a lot of land and tech. I really feel sorry for you and yours if all you can take satisfaction from is what you can take from others. They are just objects that are perishable and replaceable. As I said, other things that have much more value cannot be taken or destroyed -- things that you will never have. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Nobody is trying to dictate anything, but expect there to be consequences that you might not expect. When you beat and loot from enough people and make others suffer the damage as you use them as pawns, it can only go on for so long. Who's a pawn? In any given war, a DBDC nation takes far more damage than anyone else, that's just how it works up there in the ranks. Bigger nation = more damage, both dealt and given. So DBDC gets hurt more than any of it's allies.Furthermore, in order to have fun and interest, there must be conflict. In order for a fun conflict, there must be two opposing sides. DBDC does not have anything to do with this rule. I really feel sorry for you and yours if all you can take satisfaction from is what you can take from others. They are just objects that are perishable and replaceable. As I said, other things that have much more value cannot be taken or destroyed -- things that you will never have. Ever. This isn't Harry Potter bro, calm down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walford Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Who's a pawn? In any given war, a DBDC nation takes far more damage than anyone else, that's just how it works up there in the ranks. Bigger nation = more damage, both dealt and given. So DBDC gets hurt more than any of it's allies. I'm sure those 12 alliances you manipulated into joining into this conflict will be happy to hear how much credit they are getting for the losses they have suffered in this undeclared war of aggression that you started. There are stats available that anyone can review to see if your alliance is actually bearing the brunt of these losses as you imply. Furthermore, in order to have fun and interest, there must be conflict. In order for a fun conflict, there must be two opposing sides. DBDC does not have anything to do with this rule. There are other ways of having fun besides waiting around a corner and sucker-punching random people and rifling through their pockets, but I suppose that your sort can only conceive of "fun" at the expense of others. For that, you have my pity. This isn't Harry Potter bro, calm down. This isn't WoW either. And I'm not your "bro." Edited January 25, 2015 by Walford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Funny how much that sounds like Tywin. Parasties vs Producers all over again xD The self-rightouness of this alliance, which sleeps in bed with the same evils that they preach against, is just so cute. Elaborate? Who exactly are we in bed with that could be considered evil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Not sure why you think you can dictate to us (or anyone) how to run our alliances, and how to engage in the world of politics.I don't think I said anything that could be construed as "dictating" anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted January 26, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 By crying? If so, Can we add Unknown Smurf to the list? I'm not saying their way is right (or wrong), just saying they doing whatever they are doing/thinking is different than the (vocal) majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Not sure why you think you can dictate to us (or anyone) how to run our alliances, and how to engage in the world of politics. You seem to think you can dictate who gets to be within the top 250, all you're really going to do long term is determine who gets to exist in peace in the rest of the world, and I suspect it will not be those who support these attacks that cost years of progress with no valid justification. Edited January 26, 2015 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) I'm not saying their way is right (or wrong), just saying they doing whatever they are doing/thinking is different than the (vocal) majority. They do present themselves in a particular way. I see them as part of a 'traditionalist' pole, which values pageantry and RP as an integral part of how things should be done. The opposing pole is utilitarian, those who are prepared to strip everything back to its core function. Most alliances drift between, adopting a style depending on their relations with alliances at the core of each pole. Treaties can provide a good contrast, some require a formal document posted with distinct clauses laying out the various responsibilities and whatnot. Others are happy with posting something along the lines of 'x and y have an MDP now'. Conflict of style over substance as both types of alliances engage in the same behaviours, but interesting nonetheless. Edited January 26, 2015 by WorldConqueror Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastor Jason Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Who's a pawn? In any given war, a DBDC nation takes far more damage than anyone else, that's just how it works up there in the ranks. Bigger nation = more damage, both dealt and given. So DBDC gets hurt more than any of it's allies.Furthermore, in order to have fun and interest, there must be conflict. In order for a fun conflict, there must be two opposing sides. DBDC does not have anything to do with this rule. This isn't Harry Potter bro, calm down. Best post ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Pehaps the "utilitarians" are stripping too much. Nobody wants to see them in their tighty wighties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walford Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 They do present themselves in a particular way. I see them as part of a 'traditionalist' pole, which values pageantry and RP as an integral part of how things should be done. The opposing pole is utilitarian, those who are prepared to strip everything back to its core function. Most alliances drift between, adopting a style depending on their relations with alliances at the core of each pole. Treaties provide a good contrast, some require a formal document posted with distinct clauses laying out the various responsibilities and whatnot. Others are happy with posting something along the lines of 'x and y have an MDP now'. Conflict of style over substance as both types of alliances engage in the same behaviours, but interesting nonetheless. "Utiliatarian" is a nice-sounding term to describe those who see others as a means to an end and do unto others what they would not tolerate having done to themselves -- and that includes both adversaries [whom they create] and putative allies who are kept around so long as they prove useful. There are other terms that might be more accurate and honest, but the fact that it is necessary to use euphemisms to describe one's own position speaks volumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 "Utiliatarian" is a nice-sounding term to describe those who see others as a means to an end and do unto others what they would not tolerate having done to themselves -- and that includes both adversaries [whom they create] and putative allies who are kept around so long as they prove useful. There are other terms that might be more accurate and honest, but the fact that it is necessary to use euphemisms to describe one's own position speaks volumes. It was my own musings on how alliances operate in our world, sorry I didn't inject your propaganda lines into it.I could rename traditionalist to pompous or neckbeardy if you prefer more subjective terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walford Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 It was my own musings on how alliances operate in our world, sorry I didn't inject your propaganda lines into it. I could rename traditionalist to pompous or neckbeardy if you prefer more subjective terms. You know, the ones who seem to be doing the actual crying are those who are doing unto others and are infuriated for being called on it. Those who are not saying "LOL" or "o7" are supposed to keep quiet and just take it. I can almost see you and your foolish minions balling their little fists in rage as you, your toadies and the world are confronted with your own smallness and ugliness. Like I said, all I feel is pity for the likes of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 If it makes you feel better, WC is a former Pacifican toadie, followed by an MK toadie...to whatever he is today. I kid, WC is a good guy. Also, I prefer the term neckbeardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 You know, the ones who seem to be doing the actual crying are those who are doing unto others and are infuriated for being called on it. Those who are not saying "LOL" or "o7" are supposed to keep quiet and just take it. I can almost see you and your foolish minions balling their little fists in rage as you, your toadies and the world are confronted with your own smallness and ugliness. Like I said, all I feel is pity for the likes of you. You're reaching a long way to get crying and infuriated insinuations in.No Walford, I am simply amused that you decided to take issue with a neutral term I used in the course of making a wider point about the culture of alliance conduct. There was plenty to engage with had you decided to. Why for instance was your war of aggression against NSO justified while Doom Squad's war of aggression on SNX is not? In my view, neither of the broader arguments they demonstrate are right or wrong, they just are. Both at base are the same action, yet they get filtered through your basic approach to this place.Every alliances core function is to secure their position, however they define it. You may dress up your actions to secure your position in legalese and precedent but you still do what you feel you need to. DBDC acts to secure the position they have defined for themselves too, aggressively so, discarding diplomatic niceties they feel they don't need. You can argue that's wrong, but therein lies the eternal conflict. If their position conflicts with yours it is your obligation to secure the place you have defined for yourself. That you have failed to do so and are now reaping the consequences causes me little heartache.Funny though that you avoided the core of my point and went for my choice of term and then devolved into taunts of crying. I suppose what they say about staring into the abyss is true eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walford Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Your "nuh-uh you did it too" smacks of moral equivalence that is not merited. I'm not here to defend what Polaris did before I was in the alliance; at one time we were at opposite ends of a major war that hurt everyone -- including the victors. in the immediate aftermath, two major alliances with 800+ members each disappeared with all of their nations, the number of non-aligned nations were cut in half and the entire population of the world shrank by a quarter. Planet Bob has continued to see a steady exodus ever since. Since then, in this post-apocalyptic world, we predictably have had roving gangs fighting each other over bones, rags and rubble -- but plenty of "LOLZ" Might-makes-right replacing diplomacy and rhetoric -- with war as the entire point rather than a risk -- as the foundation of a culture contributes to a disorder and the sapping of total strength in a society. I cite as current evidence that the aggressors are now thumping their thin little chests about how their side has not lost as much as those they attacked have -- because in the end, nobody actually 'wins' in a fight. The result of this war will not be the "winnerz" having more than what they started with. They will have less. We all will have less. Even those who are not currently involved will see fewer trading partners and themselves on the next target lists merely for appearing fat and juicy. Kewl, huh? Edited January 26, 2015 by Walford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) I'm sure those 12 alliances you manipulated into joining into this conflict will be happy to hear how much credit they are getting for the losses they have suffered in this undeclared war of aggression that you started. There are stats available that anyone can review to see if your alliance is actually bearing the brunt of these losses as you imply. I don't think anyone cares about any "credit", nor "losses". Most people I know would jump at the opportunity to break the boredom and fight a war, nobody has been coerced or manipulated into war...I also don't think its' accurate to describe fighting a war as "suffering".You seem to think you can dictate who gets to be within the top 250, all you're really going to do long term is determine who gets to exist in peace in the rest of the world, and I suspect it will not be those who support these attacks that cost years of progress with no valid justification. It does seem like we can, not that we want to. It's an effect, and outcome - not a cause nor a goal. Edited January 26, 2015 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgaine Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Most people I know would jump at the opportunity to break the boredom and fight a war, I believe that it is true that most of the people you know consider starting a war of aggression to be a way of staving off boredom. That is sad and explains a lot. nobody has been coerced or manipulated into war... I am only speaking from my own experience, but the outer ring of the coalition attacking us does not seem to have much heart in this. They do not seem to be particularly well-trained, either. I think that they were promised something positive from declaring war on us, that we would be easy prey who would be ripe for the pickings. That is not been the case nor shall it be so long as these attacks continue. It is a pity how badly you have exploited your comrades in this way. I also don't think its' accurate to describe fighting a war as "suffering". Both sides are losing assets. New hatreds are being sown due to offenses that will be long remembered. Weaknesses are being exposed. So is the deficiency in character that would impel people to start a conflict under these circumstances. For my part, this war has shown how admirable and brave our comrades are in the face of such adversity. We may have less in terms of numbers, but are stronger than ever where it counts. Not since the days of NONE have I had the privilege of fighting alongside people who are so noble, sacrificing and brave. Edited January 26, 2015 by Morgaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Morgaine he does not see the fellow members of their coalition as comrades. He has a class superiority complex and feels that all members of the low tier are inferior and exist only to serve his ego and his lust for violence. It is the halmark of the parasite mentality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.