Declaration of War

[firingline]

5 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

I enjoy that every time FL is presented with facts and logic the story shifts.

 

Please point out a couple examples of my story shifting.

 

Be incredibly specific - point out what my story was, then what it became.

 

I think the trend you're noting is actually a case of TC gov 'flooding the zone with sh*t', and then being corrected with receipts shortly after, but I'll be interested to see what you come up with!

[Johnny Apocalypse]

1 hour ago, CrinkledStraw said:

I enjoy that every time FL is presented with facts and logic the story shifts.

 

Around 80-90% of responses matching the phrase "I ain't reading that" actually mean "At a glance; you are debunking my position too thoroughly and if I engage with this I risk you undermining my untenable position. Instead I will dismiss it on the grounds of you being too verbose (i.e TOO MANY BIG WORDS AT ONCE) and wait for my buds to echo this when I post the link to them"

 

The booing only encourages me further, I've even made a game of it by slipping random TV show references into the text walls for people to notice, while also rendering them unable to acknowledge noticing said references because to do so would be admitting that they have in fact read it.

 

tl;dr - see above for those of you who respond better to moving pictures and aint readin' all that, I'll try and include more pictures (pictures of more words I don't care you can't stop me)

[Wobblies]

Stay strong CCC and friends, nuke fl into glass.

[Le Trout]

I made some carne asada steak tips for dinner and it was delicious. 

[Van Hoo X]

30 minutes ago, Le Trout said:

I made some carne asada steak tips for dinner and it was delicious. 

 

Excuse me. This sounds very personal.

[Le Trout]

Just now, Van Hoo X said:

 

Excuse me. This sounds very personal.

Excuse me, can you not mention it? 

[berbers]

33 minutes ago, Le Trout said:

I made some carne asada steak tips for dinner and it was delicious. 

wow, this thread was super classy until you had to come along and !@#$ it up.  

 

Not cool man.

[Le Trout]

3 minutes ago, berbers said:

wow, this thread was super classy until you had to come along and !@#$ it up.  

 

Not cool man.

Hey, no need for foul language. I’m very disappointed with you.

[Van Hoo X]

8 minutes ago, Le Trout said:

Excuse me, can you not mention it? 

 

Welcome to the internet, pal.

[Le Trout]

7 minutes ago, Van Hoo X said:

 

Welcome to the internet, pal.

I’m not your pal, guy

[Van Hoo X]

11 minutes ago, Le Trout said:

I’m not your pal, guy

 

I'm not your guy, buddy.

[Le Trout]

6 minutes ago, Van Hoo X said:

 

I'm not your guy, buddy.

I’m not your buddy, friend

[Van Hoo X]

Just now, Le Trout said:

I’m not your buddy, friend

 

I'm not your friend, GUY.

[Le Trout]

12 minutes ago, Van Hoo X said:

 

I'm not your friend, GUY.

I’m not your GUY, pal

[firingline]

To be fair I'd rather hear Hoo and Trout continue that for the rest of my life than ever hear from sniveling @Wobblies ever again. You're nearly as bad as whoever that dude is from Fark who follows me around all the time.

[Le Trout]

4 minutes ago, firingline said:

To be fair I'd rather hear Hoo and Trout continue that for the rest of my life than ever hear from sniveling @Wobblies ever again. You're nearly as bad as whoever that dude is from Fark who follows me around all the time.

Hey, use my referral link 

[CrinkledStraw]

2 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

Around 80-90% of responses matching the phrase "I ain't reading that" actually mean "At a glance; you are debunking my position too thoroughly and if I engage with this I risk you undermining my untenable position. Instead I will dismiss it on the grounds of you being too verbose (i.e TOO MANY BIG WORDS AT ONCE) and wait for my buds to echo this when I post the link to them"

 

 

I’ve now agreed with what you’ve posted (and others I don’t usually) a few times in this thread. That, coupled with FL being proven wrong over and over with his own words, have been a real treat. 🫡

[firingline]

15 minutes ago, CrinkledStraw said:

 

I’ve now agreed with what you’ve posted (and others I don’t usually) a few times in this thread. That, coupled with FL being proven wrong over and over with his own words, have been a real treat. 🫡

 

I'm still waiting for you to provide some examples of me changing my story. Maybe after that you can provide examples of where I've been proven wrong. But first you need to back up your initial claim, and it seems like you're not really able to do that.

[cobwebbyarc6]

3 minutes ago, firingline said:

 

I'm still waiting for you to provide some examples of me changing my story. Maybe after that you can provide examples of where I've been proven wrong. But first you need to back up your initial claim, and it seems like you're not really able to do that.

C'mon, it has only been 4 hours. Give it time. I'm certain it is worth the wait.

[CrinkledStraw]

1 hour ago, firingline said:

 

I'm still waiting for you to provide some examples of me changing my story. Maybe after that you can provide examples of where I've been proven wrong. But first you need to back up your initial claim, and it seems like you're not really able to do that.

My examples are available for everyone to see in this thread, unlike your CB.

[KameraadLenin]

/slap trout

[Tevron]

@lilweirdward

 

Before the topic runs away too far:

 

Noting that CCC (probably cookout at large) views Nukesx6 as a rogue alliance as NG once was, I would refer back to that precedent, but also that of Umbrella / Mushqaeda, etc.

 

Sanctions were not employed against such alliances. So what makes this situation different?

[Le Trout]

!klap lenin 

[firingline]

10 hours ago, CrinkledStraw said:

My examples are available for everyone to see in this thread

 

Then why is it taking so long for you to prove your point?

 

Just lay a couple out.

 

Initial story (with a quote), then 'changed story' (with a quote.) Should take like 15 seconds.

[lilweirdward]

2 hours ago, Tevron said:

@lilweirdward

 

Before the topic runs away too far:

 

Noting that CCC (probably cookout at large) views Nukesx6 as a rogue alliance as NG once was, I would refer back to that precedent, but also that of Umbrella / Mushqaeda, etc.

 

Sanctions were not employed against such alliances. So what makes this situation different?

Heh, Mushquaeda is actually a great example of an alliance that posted a DoW and did other alliance-y things, but was still treated as a group of rogues by the community writ large. Definitely some other amusing parallels to today too, now that I think about it.
 

Let’s stick with NG post-disbandment for the sake of comparison though, as that is much more recent, and the CN community much more similar to the one that exists today. NG may not have been sanctioned, but all of their allies suspended their treaties and refused to recognize them as a legitimate alliance. The two largest blocs in the game declared war on them. Even NG largely recognized themselves as rogues, and as Lenin said elsewhere in this thread, ultimately negotiated their own settlement that allowed them to regain status as a regular alliance. The only entities who supported NG at the time were a few micros that were already well known for raiding and not acting within the norms of the broader community anyway. In short, the whole of CN condemned them as rogues. 
 

Today, we seek nothing more than equal treatment. Nuke6 are rogues by any precedent, and in modern times, rogue entities have been near-universally condemned across CN. Sanctions are a reasonable and established way for alliances to condemn rogue activity without involving themselves militarily. To not sanction Nuke6, or in any way discourage their rogue behavior, would actually be setting a precedent that would be harmful for the whole of CN, and I would very much like to avoid creating a world where people feel that they can collectively raid and break established norms without consequence so long as they only attack one coalition’s enemies.