neneko Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Did getting white peace royally piss you off? The only thing I've seen comming out from BAPS since their surrender in this war is trolling against the winning side so I can't help but wonder if you thought your terms were way to harsh or if you felt it's okay to be dicks to the winning side since no terms told you otherwise. To be fair I havn't seen alot of this from the leadership or gov but since I have yet to see a BAPS member with a different opinion I have to ask. Do this view that your active posters show on owf reflect the the view of the rest of the alliance? I'll quote the terms here so you can point out to me wich term made you most angry. 1) BAPS hereby admits defeat and surrenders to LOSS, Nemesis, TOP, TSO, Umbrella, BTO, IngSoc and Ravyns;2) BAPS will declare neutrality for the duration of the Karma War; 3) BAPS will decommission all but 25 nuclear weapons for a period of two months or for the duration of the war, whichever is shorter 4) BAPS will decommission all but 10 navy vessals (per nation) for a period of two months or for the duration of the war, whichever is shorter See this thread as an opportunity to get it out of your system. Lay down on the futon and tell me what's bothering you. P.S Kudos to valhalla and OMFG that have been awesome after (and during) the war. I have a newfound respect for you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lakes Union Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I don't see anything in the terms that says BAPS members will only express opinions Karma likes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I don't see anything in the terms that says BAPS members will only express opinions Karma likes... Pretty much this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I don't see anything in the terms that says BAPS members will only express opinions Karma likes... My post. Let me show you it. so I can't help but wonder if you thought your terms were way to harsh or if you felt it's okay to be dicks to the winning side since no terms told you otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Karma is trying to suppress people's thoughts and feelings!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Beau Pre Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Karma is trying to suppress people's thoughts and feelings!!! Therefore Karma is as bad as NPO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lakes Union Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 My post. Let me show you it. Regardless of that short statement you seem to be saying that because they took terms they shouldn't be saying things you don't like, so I stand by what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I don't see anything in the terms that says BAPS members will only express opinions Karma likes... - Neutrality, in philosophy, not taking side in a controversy. - Neutral point of view (NPOV) in Journalism, a stance or tone that is free from bias. - Neutral country, in politics, is a country that takes no side in a conflict The spirit of the treaty anyone? anyone? anyone? Bueller? Note that the standard definitions don't say you can't think that someone should die in fire and their enemies urinate on their grave...just that expressing that opinion in a public forum isn't neutral. BAPS, Valhalla loves you. But c'mon, dial it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Regardless of that short statement you seem to be saying that because they took terms they shouldn't be saying things you don't like, so I stand by what I said. My post. Let me explain (you) it. My question was if they thought they should be dicks just because no terms told them otherwise, i.e. be dicks because they can or if they were actually angry at the winning side and if so, why. Because I feel it's a spit in the face to be trolled by the people we gave white peace to. Not saying that they're not allowed to though, just wondering why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Did getting white peace royally piss you off? It wasnt white peace The only thing I've seen comming out from BAPS since their surrender in this war is trolling against the winning side you need to look harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 It wasnt white peace The terms are in the OP. Please point out the ones that makes this non-white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 You're probably thinking of alterego and Thom98. While alterego is a longstanding member of BAPS, Thom is a recent arrival there, and I think it's safe to say that the terms BAPS got aren't what has ticked him off (they were issued before he joined BAPS, at the time he was in Invicta), but rather actions taken by certain members of Karma and Vox long before the war. If you actually want to meet BAPS leadership, go to #baps on Coldfront, you'll probably get a rather different picture of the alliance. They've long since given up posting on these forums in any quantity. Their triumvirs' posts: moshea Nobody Expects topgun0820 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lakes Union Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 My post. Let me explain (you) it.My question was if they thought they should be dicks just because no terms told them otherwise, i.e. be dicks because they can or if they were actually angry at the winning side and if so, why. Because I feel it's a spit in the face to be trolled by the people we gave white peace to. Not saying that they're not allowed to though, just wondering why. BAPS has always been pretty opinionated and felt free to express those opinions. I am sure if the war had somehow turned out differently, some alliances on the Karama side would have continued to express their opinions as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Walz Pants Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I look forward to the future term requiring all communications and/or thoughts to be cleared through Karma leadership or other victorious forces. Also BAPS is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moshea Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 If you actually want to meet BAPS leadership, go to #baps on Coldfront, you'll probably get a rather different picture of the alliance. They've long since given up posting on these forums in any quantity. This. I could count on one hand the number of BAPSters who actively post on these forums. We do have a couple however, and whilst I fully support their right to post here (regardless of what their opinions might be), it would be a mistake to think that their opinions nessecerily respresent those of the alliance as a whole. I've always thought it less than constructive to conduct any serious alliance business here, and as such I will take my leave of this thread. That said, if you have particular grievences which you'd like to talk about, feel free to drop by #baps. -Mo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I could count on one hand the number of BAPSters who actively post on these forums. We do have a couple however, and whilst I fully support their right to post here (regardless of what their opinions might be), it would be a mistake to think that their opinions nessecerily respresent those of the alliance as a whole. Wich was why I asked. I didn't say they're not allowed to be pissed off at us. What I wonder is if this represents the view of the alliance and if so, why are you angry at us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 This has been fairly so far...no one has actually addressed neneko's point, and the closest we've got is an oh-so-informative post from Alterego asking to look harder. A number of tangential points have been made, but those are fairly irrelevant given the simplistic nature of the initial query. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 The original query is a bit vague. Really, could you specify who it is you are talking about? I think a review of BAPS government posts (I provided links to their triumvirs' posting histories) should help clarify their official positions on some topics. But it's long been BAPS policy to not post much here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Emares Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I'd like some specific examples of said strongly opinionated posting (aka trolling) since our surrender. As to the official views of the alliance, they are expressed by our Triums (and to some extent our Ministers who speak for the alliance with regards to their specific area of oversight). Members who are not Triums or Ministers do not express the views of the alliance as a whole. We in BAPS respect the rights of our members to think, and give their own opinions on any subject they choose. So if some members are angry at "Karma" and its affiliated alliances, and choose to express their views through the mediums given to us by admin, then you should take up the issue with those members and ask them why they have their specific grievences against you and/or your allies. If the opinions they espouse are of an unsavoury nature please contact a member of .gov and we'll deal with the poster in question. I know I personally don't hold any ill will towards the alliances we were against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moshea Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) This has been fairly so far...no one has actually addressed neneko's point, and the closest we've got is an oh-so-informative post from Alterego asking to look harder. A number of tangential points have been made, but those are fairly irrelevant given the simplistic nature of the initial query. You're right, it hasn't been addressed here, and likely won't. Well, certainly not by me. I have however spoken with neneko and did my best to address her question(s). If there any other genuinly interested parties, then they should feel free to drop by #baps for a few. If on the other hand you're just a bored OWF reader, then I'm afraid this thread likely doesn't have much more to offer ya. Cheers, -Mo. Edited May 23, 2009 by lukemos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huang Ti Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) If you actually want to meet BAPS leadership, go to #baps on Coldfront, you'll probably get a rather different picture of the alliance. They've long since given up posting on these forums in any quantity.Their triumvirs' posts: moshea Nobody Expects topgun0820 Haf, Moshea and LE already said it but the views expressed by non-gov (or even non-triumvir) BAPSters on these forums are not the views of BAPS. I know I personally don't hold any ill will towards the alliances we were against. Ditto. And quite a few BAPSters had good banter with our enemies. \snip\ Hmmm Edited May 23, 2009 by Huang Ti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Expects Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) Nice to see Noneko researched hard before bringing this oh so insightful analysis of BAPS FA Policy to the attention of the OWF, which evidently is directly completely by Alterego our MoFA......oh wait....he's not. Oh and I don't bear any grudges against anyone......seems thats not the case on your side? Thanks, N.E. Edited May 23, 2009 by Nobody Expects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 I have no complaints about the peace agreement and dont hold a grudge against anyone because of the last war. Bearing in mind what you have been saying in all the white peace threads can you say the same neneko? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadrin Failing Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 (edited) Did getting white peace royally piss you off? 1) BAPS hereby admits defeat and surrenders to LOSS, Nemesis, TOP, TSO, Umbrella, BTO, IngSoc and Ravyns;2) BAPS will declare neutrality for the duration of the Karma War; 3) BAPS will decommission all but 25 nuclear weapons for a period of two months or for the duration of the war, whichever is shorter 4) BAPS will decommission all but 10 navy vessals (per nation) for a period of two months or for the duration of the war, whichever is shorter Perhaps I have misunderstood the term 'White Peace'. I thought that it meant peace with no terms of surrender other than to withdraw from the current conflict. These terms may not require reparations, but DO hold BAPS to military restrictions and require them to demolish costly resources. Does 'White Peace' instead mean that simply that no monetary reparations are requested? Edited May 23, 2009 by Vanadrin Failing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeCoHo Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 o/ BAPS. You're gonna have people who are deeply opinionated in every alliance. One or two mean comments do not define the quality of an Alliance. And BAPS is A+ Quality, I've been idling (mostly) in their IRC Channel. They're good people. I wouldn't mind having them as a neighbor IRL. They wouldn't sneak into my pool and use it without asking. 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.