magicninja Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Like I said, I'll leave it to Sponge to argue his case. This isn't my fight. From what I hear Allies are just as guilty as the alliance perpetrating the actions. STA has been joined at Polar's hip for awhile has it not? I can see where Sponge distancing himself from doing anything wrong would benefit STA so I'm not surprised that you would back him up. All that aside probably a good idea because from where I'm standing, and considering Sponge is right, then everyone who fought an alliance that disbanded is innocent. You cannot have it two ways here. I do happen to agree with Sponge on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) From what I hear Allies are just as guilty as the alliance perpetrating the actions. STA has been joined at Polar's hip for awhile has it not? I can see where Sponge distancing himself from doing anything wrong would benefit STA so I'm not surprised that you would back him up. I believe the STA paid her dues for associating with Polar, if it is indeed a crime. Edited May 14, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) I believe the STA paid her dues for associating with Polar, if it is indeed a crime. I'll agree with that. If what Polar and other alliances did was wrong (having alliances disband rather than face terms) then you all got a bit of Karma for backing Polar's play and their getting theirs now. If it isn't, then no one deserved any karma for any of those alliances and all this non-sense about pay back for them is moot. So which is it? Edited May 14, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Enlighten me about LUE. Also, MK is around and doing very well so we won't count them. Okay so failed attempts don't count? We all know NPO wanted that alliance to disappear. LUE - Great War II (continued into III). Initiative (NPO in particular) decided that LUE's time as an alliance was over so they decided never to grant them peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Okay so failed attempts don't count? We all know NPO wanted that alliance to disappear.LUE - Great War II (continued into III). Initiative (NPO in particular) decided that LUE's time as an alliance was over so they decided never to grant them peace. But LUE didn't have to disband right? It was their decision? They were too weak to take the FAN or Vox route? Isn't that what you are saying? Where were you during GWIII? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I like your style Sponge. Whining about other people whining about you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 But LUE didn't have to disband right? It was their decision? They were too weak to take the FAN or Vox route? Isn't that what you are saying? That is what I'm saying, yes. Where were you during GWIII? Busy forcing NAAC to disband I like your style Sponge. Whining about other people whining about you I like my style too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 That is what I'm saying, yes. So, then you are saying Pacifica and her allies did nothing wrong when people they were fighting disbanded? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 So, then you are saying Pacifica and her allies did nothing wrong when people they were fighting disbanded? Of coursed they're not. But the collective voice of the people say they are. Only a fool would not cash in on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRON IX Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 wow, I think I awoke in crazy land today. I actually agree with the OP. You can create the circumstances that cause them to disband, but you can't force them to. I just don't see that option anywhere in the control panel. -Tron(admin can)ix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 So, then you are saying Pacifica and her allies did nothing wrong when people they were fighting disbanded? Harsh terms are what is wrong. the alliances who disband due to not wanting to live with harsh terms do so under their own volition. Polaris got hit by its own Karma and rolled for the harsh terms and illegitimate wars it engaged in. Pacifica and crew are getting hit by Karma for the same reason. This, other than in a few people's minds, have anything to do with alliances being disbanded. The major stance that most of Karma govs are taking is against harsh terms. so please stop trying to turn this around on anyone as it is two very different things. Pacifica did wrong with harsh terms, many of Pacifica's allies getting rolled now either went along gleefully or doled out their own harsh terms in wars. As i have stated before, alliances can only disband if their members want it to it is that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) Harsh terms are what is wrong. the alliances who disband due to not wanting to live with harsh terms do so under their own volition. Polaris got hit by its own Karma and rolled for the harsh terms and illegitimate wars it engaged in. Pacifica and crew are getting hit by Karma for the same reason. This, other than in a few people's minds, have anything to do with alliances being disbanded. The major stance that most of Karma govs are taking is against harsh terms. so please stop trying to turn this around on anyone as it is two very different things. Pacifica did wrong with harsh terms, many of Pacifica's allies getting rolled now either went along gleefully or doled out their own harsh terms in wars. As i have stated before, alliances can only disband if their members want it to it is that simple. We'll see if you guys fix that or not. So far so good. Harsh terms are another story so I dunno why you brought that up. That said, I was just wondering if NPO and company get the same absolution under Sponge's philosophy (on this subject) as he seems to be getting. You can't let Sponge off the hook without letting everyone else off too. Edited May 15, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 We'll see if you guys fix that or not. So far so good. Harsh terms are another story so I dunno why you brought that up. That said, I was just wondering if NPO and company get the same absolution under Sponge's philosophy (on this subject) as he seems to be getting. You can't let Sponge off the hook without letting everyone else off too. Sure they can. It's called intellectual dishonesty and so long as as it allows for going along with the latest groupthink, they can get away with it forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Sure they can. It's called intellectual dishonesty and so long as as it allows for going along with the latest groupthink, they can get away with it forever. In all fairness NPO and Co. got away with that for a long time too. These Karma guys are supposed to be different though. I'm just seeing if they are. So far I'm not seeing a yes tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 That said, I was just wondering if NPO and company get the same absolution under Sponge's philosophy (on this subject) as he seems to be getting. You can't let Sponge off the hook without letting everyone else off too. Is Sponge still Emperor of Polaris? I think not. It's not like bad things haven't happened to him; by the way, I agree with the OP but some alliances still don't deserve insane terms in my opinion (as in they should be notified if certain terms were a "joke" since it might inspire them to fight harder for decent peace). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Is Sponge still Emperor of Polaris? I think not. It's not like bad things haven't happened to him; by the way, I agree with the OP but some alliances still don't deserve insane terms in my opinion (as in they should be notified if certain terms were a "joke" since it might inspire them to fight harder for decent peace). Yeah, but by his reckoning none of those bad things should have happened to him. Well, at least not for being a root cause of disbanding a few alliances anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Yeah, but by his reckoning none of those bad things should have happened to him. Well, at least not for being a root cause of disbanding a few alliances anyway. I may have misread your quote (my apologies if I did). For clarification purposes, are you referring to absolution in terms of not getting punishment or absolution in the eyes of whomever you are talking about (I'm guessing Karma?)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) I may have misread your quote (my apologies if I did). For clarification purposes, are you referring to absolution in terms of not getting punishment or absolution in the eyes of whomever you are talking about (I'm guessing Karma?)? Dunno. Everyone I guess. Sponge comes on here. He claims he is not responsible for alliances disbanding and people shouldn't hate him for it etc. Many Karma people agree. I agree. I'm just wondering if he and others will give the NPO and Co. the same benefit. Apparently they are blamed to have disbanded an alliance or two. If Sponge can wash away what he did with blaming it on the disbanding alliance and get approval for it......There is no reason NPO and Co. can't do the same. I'm not saying it changes anything in the war or takes away from anything else they have done wrong. Just applying it to this little issue here. This of course is only if you believe Sponge to be right. Edited May 15, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Dunno. Everyone I guess. Sponge comes on here. He claims he is not responsible for alliances disbanding and people shouldn't hate him for it etc. Many Karma people agree. I agree. I'm just wondering if he and others will give the NPO and Co. the same benefit. Apparently they are blamed to have disbanded an alliance or two. If Sponge can wash away what he did with blaming it on the disbanding alliance and get approval for it......There is no reason NPO and Co. can't do the same. I'm not saying it changes anything in the war or takes away from anything else they have done wrong. Just applying it to this little issue here. This of course is only if you believe Sponge to be right. I personally don't think he's personally responsible (as in taking all the blame) for the disbandment of said alliances. Sometimes, alliances are in a position in which internal turmoil has gone to a boiling point and the best option is to disband, but that's besides the point. I personally don't like the terms he offered at first, even if they were a joke, but I don't think he actively planned for those alliances to get disbanded; this is what I see the difference between Sponge and the current form of NPO is. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until information surfaces to prove otherwise. I can see where you're coming from but I suppose we see two sides of the same coin so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 I personally don't think he's personally responsible (as in taking all the blame) for the disbandment of said alliances. Sometimes, alliances are in a position in which internal turmoil has gone to a boiling point and the best option is to disband, but that's besides the point. I personally don't like the terms he offered at first, even if they were a joke, but I don't think he actively planned for those alliances to get disbanded; this is what I see the difference between Sponge and the current form of NPO is. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until information surfaces to prove otherwise.I can see where you're coming from but I suppose we see two sides of the same coin so to speak. I really don't think so. NPO gave out harsh terms and alliances folded. By Sponge's philosophy (Which many people are agreeing to and hailing) that's just too damn bad. No one forced them to disband. He's saying it is impossible to force someone to disband and it is the alliances fault for tapping out. I agree. You say you agree to a point. A lot of other people agree. Alright, fine. If he can use that excuse as a defense and get away with it then everyone else should be able to as well. You cannot attempt to split hairs and have it two ways. That my friend is hypocrisy at it's finest. It's not fair and when you are unfair eventually Karma will come back to get your $@!. Isn't that the lesson we are all watching unfold here this Spring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senes Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Dunno. Everyone I guess. Sponge comes on here. He claims he is not responsible for alliances disbanding and people shouldn't hate him for it etc. Many Karma people agree. I agree. I'm just wondering if he and others will give the NPO and Co. the same benefit. Personally I think there is too much deep rooted hatred for that to happen. The same goes for the whole complacency thing; current hegemony alliances are being criticized for not stopping NPO, but a lot of Karma alliances were also NPO allies at the same time. Surprise surprise, this outrage does not apply to them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Houston Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Well, I must preface this by saying that I have been a pro-ES guy for a long time. In fact, I fought for forces that he supported or lead for many months/years. ES to me was the only truth-speaker of any of the Hegemonic alliances. Have been destroyed twice at this direction with nothing as much as a "hey, good job, i screwed you over. Thanks for the help." However, ES claims to have been a major director in the demise of several alliances. Having been a "meatshield" in retrospect, makes me even more dubious of the OP. So which way is it, ES? Your statement that your conquered alliances didn't have to disband is at odds with the apparent intent. As far as I know, there are only a few alliances who exist today or have recently reformed in this category. BTW... this isn't a "bawwwww, you made us disband" post. I would just like you to be more forthright on the matter, and not just make those you put in your path of destruction seem like fools. Or should I just concede by admitting that I was not at the leadership table and just got what was deserved by the group you were party to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloudGT4 Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 In short, quit your crying because some of us have gone through a lot worse and still hung together as an alliance. You come off as nothing but spoiled children who break their toys and then cry about it. You would know all to well about that subject there wouldn't ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 We'll see if you guys fix that or not. So far so good. Harsh terms are another story so I dunno why you brought that up. That said, I was just wondering if NPO and company get the same absolution under Sponge's philosophy (on this subject) as he seems to be getting. You can't let Sponge off the hook without letting everyone else off too. actually they are entwined. harsh terms are usually why an alliance thinks about disbanding. that is why \m/ thought about it and what not. so the harsh terms are what matter. the alliance disbanding is still up to said alliance and no one else. Sponge has been at war and has actually, on the outside at least, changed his attitude. NPO has yet to do so. so why should NPO get anything if it continues to act as it always has. the rest, most have fought and are now out of the war. the terms given should reflect the attitude towards them now. NPO has done nothing to convince anyone that they have changed. yes, they are on radio silence right now but prior to this, they were the same arrogant, "we never do anything wrong" people they always were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 (edited) Sure they can. It's called intellectual dishonesty and so long as as it allows for going along with the latest groupthink, they can get away with it forever. it is called deserving to be let off the hook. if they want to be off the hook, their attitudes need to change. if they don't change that, then nothing has changed and NPO and friends could very well continue on with harsh terms and all that. Sponge has changed his tune something NPO has yet to do. Sponge has earned it. NPO has not. you do not just give absolution to everyone just because one person has been granted it. You do that, and do you really think NPO will learn anything? no. they will most likely continue down the exact same path without remorse. Dunno. Everyone I guess. Sponge comes on here. He claims he is not responsible for alliances disbanding and people shouldn't hate him for it etc. Many Karma people agree. I agree. I'm just wondering if he and others will give the NPO and Co. the same benefit. Apparently they are blamed to have disbanded an alliance or two. If Sponge can wash away what he did with blaming it on the disbanding alliance and get approval for it......There is no reason NPO and Co. can't do the same. I'm not saying it changes anything in the war or takes away from anything else they have done wrong. Just applying it to this little issue here. This of course is only if you believe Sponge to be right. Sponge has paid for the crimes he did commit. he is not responsible for other alliances disbanding. in fact, the only alliance Sponge could have disbanded was Polaris. that is it. so get over blaming anyone outside of \m/ for \m/ disbanding. (this applies to every other alliance that disbanded as well) and fact is, Sponge has changed his tune. he no longer advocates harsh terms unless necessary. NPO is one of the only alliances i truly know that actually deserves to have their own terms laid against them. Edited May 15, 2009 by Dochartaigh 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.