Kzoppistan Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 ... Do you want to instigate a culture of fear in your alliance such that nobody ever attempts to defect while at war? Actually, I think that is exactly what they are doing. And it's an effective strategy. It's not my cup of tea, but this person knew what they were getting into when they joined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjav0 Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Hm. Lets see - when 46 out of 47 nations in the alliance agree to put their nations on the line for ML, and 1 out of 47 runs like a coward, I'd hardly call it bad alliance leadership. You lied to us. You ran from battle like a coward. You knew exactly what you were getting in to when you applied to ML. Every applicant is asked in their membership Q&A thread if you are willing to risk ZI for ML. Applicants who answer "No" are rejected. We made our expectations clear from the get go. You betrayed your word to us. You knew the consequences. You surrendered faster than the French. You chose pixels over your alliance. Now we are simply going to remove as many of those pixels as we possibly can. Rots of ruck, chuck. There's only two ways you're going to escape getting ZI'd by ML - eternal hippie, or deleting your nation. As long as your nation exists, it has a big red target on it. We will tighten our screening policy for new applicants though. We don't need another retarded fat kid in our alliance, one was too many. Soo 1 out of 47 runs and you whine and cry like little girls and then threaten him over his pixels? Big words and even more fail, congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Hm. Lets see - when 46 out of 47 nations in the alliance agree to put their nations on the line for ML, and 1 out of 47 runs like a coward, I'd hardly call it bad alliance leadership. You lied to us. You ran from battle like a coward. You knew exactly what you were getting in to when you applied to ML. Every applicant is asked in their membership Q&A thread if you are willing to risk ZI for ML. Applicants who answer "No" are rejected. We made our expectations clear from the get go. You betrayed your word to us. You knew the consequences. You surrendered faster than the French. You chose pixels over your alliance. Now we are simply going to remove as many of those pixels as we possibly can. Rots of ruck, chuck. There's only two ways you're going to escape getting ZI'd by ML - eternal hippie, or deleting your nation. As long as your nation exists, it has a big red target on it. We will tighten our screening policy for new applicants though. We don't need another retarded fat kid in our alliance, one was too many. I'm not sure where you're going to get the guns to deal with him. If you know what's best for you, you'll keep 'em aimed squarely at us. And as Joker stated earlier, I can't blame the man for hauling $@! when faced with the GODLIEST MILITARY EMPIRE IN CN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naamah Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Hmmm..I see nothing about suicideing my nation til ZI for something I think is stupid: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Molon_Labe#Charter I'll say it once, Bad alliance leadership results in bad alliance membership. Im going to keep it short as I dont think this issue belongs on the OWF in the first place, but come on. Suiciding your nation till ZI? What do you think happens when your alliance is losing a war. *everyone* is getting pounded. You cant win every time. Perhaps you are one of those folks that just bails to be on the winning side each time? I dont support NPO's war of aggression either, but I agreed to defend my alliance as best as I can when I joined so you just have to man up and make it happen. These sort of disagreements are best dealt with during peace time, rebuilding is not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandersnatch Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I'm not sure where you're going to get the guns to deal with him. If you know what's best for you, you'll keep 'em aimed squarely at us.And as Joker stated earlier, I can't blame the man for hauling $@! when faced with the GODLIEST MILITARY EMPIRE IN CN. Did you just admit that you'd run away if you were losing? (note to self, get the best of them early and they'll fold like a cheap deck chair) Jyrinx, there is no culture of fear in ML. We're not afraid of each other, we argue and disagree all the time and most of our .gov types will tell you that we're the hardest bunch to try and lead because we're all kinda feisty redneck types. We're in this alliance because we agree with each other. I haven't done the research to prove I'm right but I'll wager a majority in our ranks disagreed with going to war in support of hegemony. we all knew it was the right thing to do even thought it leaves a bad taste in our mouth. The decision is simple; what's worse, supporting an Allie under circumstances less than desirable or going back on your word leaving an Allie to twist in the wind. We dont recruit, people come to us. Remember, he came to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drugsup Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Was this thread even worth the announcement? I dont see other alliances threatening their past members. If you ask me people who even think about surrender are better off out than in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 You are better off without him and going after him is just poor show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 An OOC thread dedicated to the OOC flaming of an IC action by a player. Thread locked, warns handed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts