Xanth Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 When did this turn into the goons/meth thread? Or are all threads methhead posts in just assumed to be so? I'm beginning to suspect that name is art imitating life in his case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I was going to see if I could chain in via the SRA non-consensual one-way ODP with R&R but if NG is protecting Sigrun then I can't cuz I loves me some NG (Caustic excluded cuz fuck him :P) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xanth Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I was going to see if I could chain in via the SRA non-consensual one-way ODP with R&R but if NG is protecting Sigrun then I can't cuz I loves me some NG (Caustic excluded cuz $%&@ him :P) NG aside, absolutly not. We already owe you one, dont need to make it 2 :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 NG aside, absolutly not. We already owe you one, dont need to make it 2 :P Oh I'm in NATO and was just talking about my nation, not the AA :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I was going to see if I could chain in via the SRA non-consensual one-way ODP with R&R but if NG is protecting Sigrun then I can't cuz I loves me some NG (Caustic excluded cuz $%&@ him :P) Whats with you and always wanting to attack me or my allies, didn't we have some kind of truce after the last time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Whats with you and always wanting to attack me or my allies, didn't we have some kind of truce after the last time? I'm pretty sure he just doesn't like you. Though, honestly, I guess I could be projecting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abshire Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Whats with you and always wanting to attack me or my allies, didn't we have some kind of truce after the last time? Put your narcissism away. Sometime people just want to fight for the sake of fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 At this point, I imagine there is a long queue of international statespersons just waiting to take a shot at you, Methrage. You have a particular talent for provoking irritation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 Well it has less to do you with you and more who you are fighting. For example, everytime you fight GOONS I like you. When you fight Kashmir/SRA I do not like you. Pretty simple really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 The irony is I fought Stonewall and got us in a fight with DS in order to help Jack Layton rather than Monsters Inc, since then Monsters inc have proven themselves an ally worth fighting for. Now Jack Layton will likely be forced to help those attacking those who fought for him and those he was fighting for. I don't envy his position in all of this Hey brochacho leave me out of your maniacal plots and walls of text...o/ SRA :awesome: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Well it has less to do you with you and more who you are fighting. For example, everytime you fight GOONS I like you. When you fight Kashmir/SRA I do not like you. Pretty simple really. SRA attacked me and refused peace when III% negotiated it for them. We're not really fighting anyone in Kashmir unless Margrave really wants to duel me. Edited June 17, 2015 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) No, it has everything to do with Lord Hitchcock being one of the most inept leaders on bob. Coming from me, that's saying something. God's truth was spoken right here. Caustic is notorious for his incompetence. I can't think of anyone worst or more suited to lead an alliance than Caustic, well other than hitchcock. Edited June 17, 2015 by Tidy Bowl Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caustic Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 :ehm: berbers, have at it. Methrage needs some more company :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I was going to see if I could chain in via the SRA non-consensual one-way ODP with R&R but if NG is protecting Sigrun then I can't cuz I loves me some NG (Caustic excluded cuz $%&@ him :P) The protectorate with Sigrun is solely designed to stop raiders. It does not apply to a war she has dragged her vanity alliance into. So enjoy yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtibing Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) I think when sanction requests are made, a team announcement should be made where the nations of the team color and Senators can discuss the validity of the sanction, with at least a 24 hour gap between posting and the sanction being placed. Where facts can be brought to light. Where the nation accused of being a rogue can explain their case if they are on the color. There needs to be a process to it, not just where some Senator places a sanction just because they are asked without checking into the circumstances. I don't see need for such proceedings. It looks to me like shifting the responsibilty for the placed sanctions onto the team as whole. The only ones who senator may need to consult is his alliance leadership, depending on senator's position in his own alliance and on alliance rules regarding decision making. Generally speaking, if I were a senator and someone requested sanctions against a nation which can be attacked with impunity (unaligned or unprotected alliance) and request was made by ally or friendly alliance - I would most likely grant that request. Edited June 17, 2015 by murtibing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Generally speaking, if I were a senator and someone requested sanctions against a nation which can be attacked with impunity (unaligned or unprotected alliance) and request was made by ally or friendly alliance - I would most likely grant that request. Of course you would. You are focused on your immediate risk/reward calculations with no thought whatsoever for the longer term, or the planet as a whole. This is what everyone does. And the result is our current environmental catastrophe. Unaligned or unprotected nations in war mode? It's been months since such a thing has been sighted where I live, and the last time it happened they were in PM on page refresh :P Come on, tell me with a straight face you think the unaligned are overpowered and civilization would end if we quit sanctioning them constantly. I'm ready for a good laugh. And of course we are all aware that the population of our little world is shrinking. Would it really be such a great tragedy if some unaligned nations managed to war without getting sanctioned, had a little fun and decided to stick around for next year? Honestly I think nearly all of us would rather they stay and multiply and even be less timid. It would make for a healthier world, a better environment. But change is hostage to that simple individual risk/reward calculation that tells the typical senator just to do whatever the aligned ask, because however despised and insignificant an alliance, it could still conceivably make trouble for you, but what's that little unaligned nation who's already in anarchy from a 3:1 "raid" and is about to get sanctioned going to ever be able to do to you? Like it or dislike it, agree or disagree, but at least give us credit. Everybody talks about what's wrong with the planet but very few do anything about it. We kept talking and we kept thinking until we found a practical way to do something about it, and we didnt shrink from taking risks to make it happen. Edited June 17, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtibing Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Of course you would. You are focused on your immediate risk/reward calculations with no thought whatsoever for the longer term, or the planet as a whole. This is what everyone does. And the result is our current environmental catastrophe. Unaligned or unprotected nations in war mode? It's been months since such a thing has been sighted where I live, and the last time it happened they were in PM on page refresh I raided many unaligneds in the middle tier. I see no reason to be opposed to sanctioning unaligneds on principle. I never tried to get any of my raid targets sanctioned though. Even if they redeclared on me (happened two times so far). Come on, tell me with a straight face you think the unaligned are overpowered and civilization would end if we quit sanctioning them constantly. I'm ready for a good laugh. That wasn't my point. Of course an unaligned nation versus connected alliance isn't overpowered. Still some alliances would like them sanctioned. If you were senator and your ally or friendly alliance would like sanction against some unaligned - would you refuse and upset your ally? Or alliance you want to have good relations with? But change is hostage to that simple individual risk/reward calculation that tells the typical senator just to do whatever the aligned ask, because however despised and insignificant an alliance, it could still conceivably make trouble for you, but what's that little unaligned nation who's already in anarchy from a 3:1 "raid" and is about to get sanctioned going to ever be able to do to you? I wouldn't accept request from every "aligned". There is number of alliances whose request I would deny. Not because I care about unaligneds - but because I don't care about these alliances (or outright don't like them). BTW, I don't think anybody uses sanctions in raids. Perhpas sanctions are sometimes used when raid target hit someone else from raider's AA. But I haven't heard of anybody using sanctions against original raid target even when they fight back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 BTW, I don't think anybody uses sanctions in raids. Perhpas sanctions are sometimes used when raid target hit someone else from raider's AA. But I haven't heard of anybody using sanctions against original raid target even when they fight back. There are alliances who would do this and a Senator has an obligation to know they are doing the right thing when placing it. They should find out why the nation is fighting the alliance trying to get them sanctioned. If the alliance is at fault, no sanction should be placed. If they are placed, they should be removed when it becomes possible. By other Senators if needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I raided many unaligneds in the middle tier. I see no reason to be opposed to sanctioning unaligneds on principle. I never tried to get any of my raid targets sanctioned though. Even if they redeclared on me (happened two times so far). And it's great that you don't do it, but guess what. Your personal abstention is not going to have any noticeable affect on the final outcome. Other people do. That wasn't my point. Of course an unaligned nation versus connected alliance isn't overpowered. Still some alliances would like them sanctioned. If you were senator and your ally or friendly alliance would like sanction against some unaligned - would you refuse and upset your ally? Or alliance you want to have good relations with? You're right, that's not your point, it's my point. This is exactly the calculus that leads to both the unaligned and the micro-alliances to be disproportionately and unfairly sanctioned. What would I do? I would be very reluctant to use that sanction, even for my bestest friends. That 's the truth, but I am not exactly normal, now am I? Most people will just go with the path of least resistance and sanction any unaligned or micro on request, safest for them. I can't change anything just by being myself, unfortunately. But I believe we - the micros and the unaligned as a group - CAN change it. We CAN defend ourselves, we CAN organize and use the system that victimizes us to defend ourselves instead. It's not easy but it's not impossible. And the nice thing is that if I were to be elected to the senate at some point I would explicitly run on this platform, which should help avoid straining friendships later. Because all my friends would be on fair notice what my agenda is in the senate, and would thus have fair warning as to how I would behave, and be less likely to get upset with me for standing by my principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 And it's great that you don't do it, but guess what. Your personal abstention is not going to have any noticeable affect on the final outcome. Other people do. You're right, that's not your point, it's my point. This is exactly the calculus that leads to both the unaligned and the micro-alliances to be disproportionately and unfairly sanctioned. What would I do? I would be very reluctant to use that sanction, even for my bestest friends. That 's the truth, but I am not exactly normal, now am I? Most people will just go with the path of least resistance and sanction any unaligned or micro on request, safest for them. I can't change anything just by being myself, unfortunately. But I believe we - the micros and the unaligned as a group - CAN change it. We CAN defend ourselves, we CAN organize and use the system that victimizes us to defend ourselves instead. It's not easy but it's not impossible. And the nice thing is that if I were to be elected to the senate at some point I would explicitly run on this platform, which should help avoid straining friendships later. Because all my friends would be on fair notice what my agenda is in the senate, and would thus have fair warning as to how I would behave, and be less likely to get upset with me for standing by my principles. Pretty much the same platform to mine, I don't plan to sanction anyone unless its needed to defend against Sanctions. People can expect help if they are requesting a sanction removed, but not if they want them placed. You will make a good Senator as well one day. The Revolution will only move forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Pretty much the same platform to mine, I don't plan to sanction anyone unless its needed to defend against Sanctions. People can expect help if they are requesting a sanction removed, but not if they want them placed. You will make a good Senator as well one day. The Revolution will only move forward. Yep, looking quite good from where I'm sitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 2. The peace that was agreed upon was blown when members of minc rand a round of attacks then finished them off with peace offers. Did you really think that was going to happen? This is my entire reason for being involved in this. Back when MI were going by the Riot Society moniker they got into a fight with LSF and the same thing happened. That they decided to raid SWF recently gave me a chance to have another go with them but a peace was negotiated. Now they've fallen out of favour with just about everyone there's no way I'm missing out on being involved in stomping the disingenuous filth. It's a shame that I have to be fighting a CA nation but, no other targets and anyone backing MI is scum in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Pretty much the same platform to mine, I don't plan to sanction anyone unless its needed to defend against Sanctions. People can expect help if they are requesting a sanction removed, but not if they want them placed. You will make a good Senator as well one day. The Revolution will only move forward. Viva El RevolutionE...o/ :war: Yep, looking quite good from where I'm sitting. IKR only Meth can see his plan and control the madness... :ehm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) first of all, allow me to congratulate my military opponent on bring the first leader to ever nuke me, and also the first to nuke. I have belatedly replied in kind, making you the first to ever be nuked by me. That being said; you are either the most delirious or most disengenious madman I have ever known in this world, and though you're handily beating me (with that long and illustrious pile of wonders, I knew that going in), I want you to know that every bit I can chip away from you is a victory to me. You're a blight upon our Digiterra and I revile you as the foul disease you are. As for your slack-jawed sycophants who praise your name and incite others to join your riotous, noxious cause, I have neither pity nor sympathy. I consign you to the ash pile of history, to be parked alongside the bombed out wrecks of other evil causes. You invoke Liberty, but liberty by definition is for the few. I invoke Freedom, which is man's natural birthright, and I pledge to commit myself to freeing this planet from your vomitous, malevolent presence. Odious filth, I prophesy for you oblivion, ultimately to be forgotten where you are not reviled. Let war cleanse the face of Bob of even your names, lest they remain in our mouths as curses and in doing so keep alive the foulness of your memory. Your pustulic populations, full of vitriolic blasphemy against god and man, I consign to decimation; let the poisonous odors of your arguments be rent by cleansing flame. To your meek and mewling whining for liberty for yourselves and burdens for others, I have the reply of cannon fire and sword. Get thee gone from our houses and our planet, you pilfering, posturing, villainous vermin, there is not room for YOU; you are exiled from the Brotherhood of nations and the family of man. Let it be heard in every home in every nation of man: For these ruffians and blasphemers, War is the Answer. They are all mad dogs; mad dogs must needs be put down. So we shall. Edited June 25, 2015 by Margrave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 first of all, allow me to congratulate my military opponent on bring the first leader to ever nuke me, and also the first to nuke. I have belatedly replied in kind, making you the first to ever be nuked by me.That being said; you are either the most delirious or most disengenious madman I have ever known in this world, and though you're handily beating me (with that long and illustrious pile of wonders, I knew that going in), I want you to know that every bit I can chip away from you is a victory to me.I am glad I could have that honor, now you know what real war feels like. Every bit you can chip away feels as it should, that is war. 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.