AllenKalashnikov Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Like someone said earlier your CB is BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 We don't care if you're unhappy. It's no business of yours. When an alliance is rolled unfairly, it's not a case of 'whose business it is'. It's unfair. Period. We have a valid CB. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. How are we not "practicing what we preach" exactly? Seeing is believing. Because like I already said, if a significantly larger alliance DoWed on NSO without a CB, suddenly the tables would turn. All we're asking is to see the evidence, can you not provide it? If not, why should we expect it to exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orkules Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 (edited) When an alliance is rolled unfairly, it's not a case of 'whose business it is'. It's unfair. Period.Seeing is believing. Because like I already said, if a significantly larger alliance DoWed on NSO without a CB, suddenly the tables would turn. All we're asking is to see the evidence, can you not provide it? If not, why should we expect it to exist? Stig, will you believe me that I saw the evidence they posted and it looked better than most evidence I've seen? Also, to be a jackass...He never said it wasn't unfair...just that he didn't care. Edited April 11, 2009 by Orkules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Like someone said earlier your CB is BS How so, because we won't give out our evidence to every slack-jawed gawker who demands it? There is no benefit to us in catering to your inflated sense of entitlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Like someone said earlier your CB is BS Even if it was, why the heck do you care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Because like I already said, if a significantly larger alliance DoWed on NSO without a CB, suddenly the tables would turn. All we're asking is to see the evidence, can you not provide it? If not, why should we expect it to exist? The tables would not turn. We don't want our dirty laundry in public. And we would not want someone attacking us to post their evidence all over the forums. To be honest. I would be fighting, not begging for evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reachwind Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Like someone said earlier your CB is BS If you feel that is the case, take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenKalashnikov Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Even if it was, why the heck do you care? B/c I fight injustice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Stig, will you believe me that I saw the evidence they posted and it looked better than most evidence I've seen?Also, to be a jackass...He never said it wasn't unfair...just that he didn't care. All I want to see if proof for everyone to see that these attacks are fair, then that will make me and everyone else happy as larry. (Except CDC of course) But my point is, they have evidence for all to see, NSO (as far as most are concerned) still have none - they need to counter it. Even if it was, why the heck do you care? Because if it was, an alliance is being destroyed without valid reason. Which is unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 If you feel that is the case, take action. And what action other than posting his thoughts here would you suggest he take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Logan Posted April 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Just to put it back on track before I have to head out, it's not really about whether he truly was spying. If he was, so be it. I said before that had the NSO brought proof of their allegations to me, I would have kicked him from the alliance and I would have curbstomped him myself. That didn't happen though. NSO unjustly declared on my alliance and only offered to submit proof after the fact. Proof that would have been used against hilltopper by myself without having to have my alliance rolled. I was never given the chance to do anything about it and that's the difference between a respectable alliance and the NSO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 How so, because we won't give out our evidence to every slack-jawed gawker who demands it? But of course, Corinan. Surely you would have realized by now that these discussions are devoted to the needs of slack-jawed gawkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 All I want to see if proof for everyone to see that these attacks are fair, then that will make me and everyone else happy as larry. (Except CDC of course) But my point is, they have evidence for all to see, NSO (as far as most are concerned) still have none - they need to counter it.Because if it was, an alliance is being destroyed without valid reason. Which is unfair. We don't have any need to counter it. Our evidence has been given to those involved. Our reasons are quite valid. We do not need your stamp of approval in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 We don't have any need to counter it. Our evidence has been given to those involved.Our reasons are quite valid. We do not need your stamp of approval in this matter. It would appear it is not only me who seems to disagree with your cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 It would appear it is not only me who seems to disagree with your cause. You don't seem to get it: I don't care. The parties with vested interests in this matter have seen what they needed to see. You have no stake in this and I'm not here to entertain your whims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Valdez Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 If someone is doing something they shouldn't and you know of it, you have a responsibility to bring it to my attention so I can deal with it. If I fail to do that, then you are justified to declare on my alliance. Anything else is bs. Poor baby. There is no 'responsibility' to bring anything to your attention. There is no such thing as a 'convention' requiring an attempt at peaceful resolution. (The fact you keep mentioning this has convinced me that the NSO had every right to attack.) Like a child with its hand in the cookie jar, you are getting said hand slapped. I think you should be grateful Ivan Moldavi and NSO aren't being more harsh with you. Take your punishment and don't do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 B/c I fight injustice. Start fighting then. All I want to see if proof for everyone to see that these attacks are fair, then that will make me and everyone else happy as larry. (Except CDC of course) But my point is, they have evidence for all to see, NSO (as far as most are concerned) still have none - they need to counter it.Because if it was, an alliance is being destroyed without valid reason. Which is unfair. CDC has no evidence except for gabe's long winded story of his friendship and history of playing with the guy behind hilltopper. You do not always get what you want. This is one of those cases. We have countered it. In public, and in private. Just because you did not get the chance to see it does not mean it does not exist. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that you are just arguing for evidence out of sheer boredom. The alliance is not being destroyed. It is being attacked for a week, and that is all. It is also a very solid CB, with very solid evidence. The fact is you are not getting over it. So you may continue crying about it, in fact please do, your tears are washing the blood off my boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 You don't seem to get it: I don't care.The parties with vested interests in this matter have seen what they needed to see. You have no stake in this and I'm not here to entertain your whims. So you don't care that you are destroying an alliance without good reason? :/ You do not always get what you want. This is one of those cases. We have countered it. In public, and in private. Just because you did not get the chance to see it does not mean it does not exist. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that you are just arguing for evidence out of sheer boredom. The alliance is not being destroyed. It is being attacked for a week, and that is all. It is also a very solid CB, with very solid evidence. "IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT I WANT... IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S FAIR!" But really, at face value you are rolling an alliance without reason. Remember this thread youwish? You thought that was unfair, right, like all the others in that thread? This is the same case here. Give us a CB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 You don't seem to get it: I don't care.The parties with vested interests in this matter have seen what they needed to see. You have no stake in this and I'm not here to entertain your whims. How could you, Corinan! Don't you realise that all decisions taken by an alliance must first be vetted and agreed upon by the bored chattering classes of the Open World Forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Valdez Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 B/c I fight injustice. Is that you, Superman? All I want to see if proof for everyone to see that these attacks are fair, then that will make me and everyone else happy as larry. (Except CDC of course) But my point is, they have evidence for all to see, NSO (as far as most are concerned) still have none - they need to counter it.Because if it was, an alliance is being destroyed without valid reason. Which is unfair. The evidence was posted. You didn't see it. I did. Boo hoo hoo. Get over it. Just to put it back on track before I have to head out, it's not really about whether he truly was spying. If he was, so be it. I said before that had the NSO brought proof of their allegations to me, I would have kicked him from the alliance and I would have curbstomped him myself. That didn't happen though. NSO unjustly declared on my alliance and only offered to submit proof after the fact. Proof that would have been used against hilltopper by myself without having to have my alliance rolled. I was never given the chance to do anything about it and that's the difference between a respectable alliance and the NSO. You realize that you've gone from "We did nothing" to "Maybe we were spying"? Your only argument then is that the NSO addressed this in a way that hurts your feelings. Please see my response to the individual directly above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empirica Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Seems to me NSO has evidence, it's just not legal to post it due to the nature of the evidence. Judging solely by what I've seen in this thread, including the now removed screenshot, looks legit to me. Not that I have any interest in the matter. Also, seriously, how many times do alliances who are spied on go talk diplomacy with the alliance caught spying? I mean, if it was [ooc]in game[/ooc] spy attacks, sure. Probably some young nation doesn't know any better. But this type of espionage usually results in shooting first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orkules Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 So you don't care that you are destroying an alliance without good reason? :/ Technically all that he said is that he doesn't care that you disagree with him. (I'm sorry Stig, just in full jackassery mode) "IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT I WANT... IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S FAIR!" I lol'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reachwind Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 So you don't care that you are destroying an alliance without good reason? :/"IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT I WANT... IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S FAIR!" But really, at face value you are rolling an alliance without reason. Remember this thread youwish? You thought that was unfair, right, like all the others in that thread? This is the same case here. Give us a CB. If you feel that CDC is being attacked unfairly take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenKalashnikov Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 You don't seem to get it: I don't care.The parties with vested interests in this matter have seen what they needed to see. You have no stake in this and I'm not here to entertain your whims. You really should care b/c it will only take about 6 people to decide that yall are being an @%& and they decide to wipe yall off of their boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Blake Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Like someone said earlier your CB is BS It isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts