LOLtex Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Except, as I recall, OMFG went nuclear first strike on TOP first, no? I believe that since OMFG was already weapons free against Umbrella, we were weapons free against OMFG. So on day 2, we were nuking each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Except, as I recall, OMFG went nuclear first strike on TOP first, no? Probably. I saw the quote and I thought that people were accusing TOP of not going nuclear at all. I didn't really feel like slogging through the previous 20+ pages to find out what the actual argument was. However, based upon the past few posts, I don't think anyone knows what they're really talking about anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I believe that since OMFG was already weapons free against Umbrella, we were weapons free against OMFG. So on day 2, we were nuking each other. So in this war, your targets were already nuking. Instead of doing what you have done before, you specifically went in there and said "don't nuke us, we won't nuke you" Given you weren't fighting along your "allies" you were unified under one banner "karma" that should be enough to act civil with each other in a time of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 So in this war, your targets were already nuking. Instead of doing what you have done before, you specifically went in there and said "don't nuke us, we won't nuke you"Given you weren't fighting along your "allies" you were unified under one banner "karma" that should be enough to act civil with each other in a time of war. As the good Nizzle has pointed out before me, this problem can be readily solved by not getting involved into war in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) So in this war, your targets were already nuking. Instead of doing what you have done before, you specifically went in there and said "don't nuke us, we won't nuke you"Given you weren't fighting along your "allies" you were unified under one banner "karma" that should be enough to act civil with each other in a time of war. Karma act civil? That went out the window when the same folks bawwwing in this topic about TOP/GRE attacked their coalition mates over a week ago. Edited May 30, 2009 by Nizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) As the good Nizzle has pointed out before me, this problem can be readily solved by not getting involved into war in the first place. There were other nations in other alliances who would have happily taken a nuke and lost a little more infrastructure for a friend or acquaintance who was fighting the same foe Karma act civil?That went out the window when the same folks bawwwing in this topic about TOP/GRE attacking their coalition mates over a week ago. Yes, and TOP was in the way* well before this topic, so it was still in the building at the time. *Meant war Edited May 30, 2009 by CptGodzilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Karma act civil?That went out the window when the same folks bawwwing in this topic about TOP/GRE attacking their coalition mates over a week ago. That sentence didn't make sense. Not sure why I'm emphasizing that as being particularly notable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 As the good Nizzle has pointed out before me, this problem can be readily solved by not getting involved into war in the first place. Sir, I request you do not use my posts that have no content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 That sentence didn't make sense. Not sure why I'm emphasizing that as being particularly notable... It totally didn't. Having way too many conversations at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 There were other nations in other alliances who would have happily taken a nuke and lost a little more infrastructure for a friend or acquaintance who was fighting the same foe Then why didn't they? We moved into this war at TOP speed, these people had ample time. Yes, and TOP was in the way before folks started bawwing, so it was still in the building at the time. In the way before what? I'm sorry, I don't follow your post. Are you referring to our mediation attempts between OV and NPO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 As the good Nizzle has pointed out before me, this problem can be readily solved by not getting involved into war in the first place. Right, want to tell that to the NPO? It's rather hard not to get involved in a war when you're declared upon. Unless of course you're referring to your own entrance, the merits of which seem to be debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Then why didn't they? We moved into this war at TOP speed, these people had ample time.In the way before what? I'm sorry, I don't follow your post. Are you referring to our mediation attempts between OV and NPO? Check my edit, meant war Also I was in nuclear anarchy before I could hop on any of the targets I was eying, and before I got out of nuclear anarchy, they were filled by all TOP Multiple other people were in the same situation I was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Sir, I request you do not use my posts that have no content. My Modelo especial says it's okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Right, want to tell that to the NPO? It's rather hard not to get involved in a war when you're declared upon.Unless of course you're referring to your own entrance, the merits of which seem to be debatable. I thought NPO just declared on OV. I'm totally lost now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought NPO just declared on OV.I'm totally lost now. Which, if you'll look at our treaty, is considered a declaration of war against VE and GOD. Which is considered a DoW on all of Superfriends. I think I might be able to draw that out further, but I've already encompassed the involved parties of our current discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamed Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought NPO just declared on OV.I'm totally lost now. "An act of war upon one signatory is to be considered an act of war upon the others and will be responded to with all force, from and by all means available to the signatories." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought NPO just declared on OV.I'm totally lost now. As per our MADP with OV and VE, an attack on one is an attack on all three! Yeah, lame rhyme I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I thought NPO just declared on OV.I'm totally lost now. Looks like there's more than one meaning to the word 'now'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) And so how does that refute the statement I and the member from TOP made about avoiding wars? Looks like there's more than one meaning to the word 'now'. You should really put something else in there when you flame someone. Makes it a bit better. EDIT EDIT: Do feel free to come into IRC and explain how I have always been lost. Many accusations, not so many conversations. Edited May 30, 2009 by Nizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Right, want to tell that to the NPO? It's rather hard not to get involved in a war when you're declared upon.Unless of course you're referring to your own entrance, the merits of which seem to be debatable. Please, let's not open that can of worms in this thread. There was a whole 60 something page thread about it earlier. Neither OV nor NPO are completely innocent, NPO obviously being far less innocent than OV. As for our own entrance, I'm not sure what you're talking about. We received a large majority of hails and happy posts in our declaration threads, where was all of this negativity then? I'm confused. edit: If you'd like to come into IRC and debate this topic, I'd be happy to. I'm an easy guy to find. Edited May 30, 2009 by LOLtex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 And so how does that refute the statement I and the member from TOP made about avoiding wars?You should really put something else in there when you flame someone. Makes it a bit better. EDIT EDIT: Do feel free to come into IRC and explain how I have always been lost. Many accusations, not so many conversations. Because it's hard to avoid wars when people decide they're going to attack you? Especially when it's in the middle of a discussion with them on how to avoid said war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Karma act civil?That went out the window when the same folks bawwwing in this topic about TOP/GRE attacking their coalition mates over a week ago. Yes, we're supposed to be very pleased when certain parties: 1) negotiate peace terms on our behalf without informing us 2) Threaten to pull out unless the reparations were capped at a maximum set number 3) attempt to strong arm my allies into getting their way 4) slander and attack RoK about an imaginary reparations demand that never existed nor was requested by RoK .gov Please Blue Lightning, throw us another dog bone! Edited May 30, 2009 by Big Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Because it's hard to avoid wars when people decide they're going to attack you? Especially when it's in the middle of a discussion with them on how to avoid said war? You are getting so much closer to the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Yes, we're supposed to be very pleased when certain parties:1) negotiate peace terms on our behalf without informing us 2) Threaten to pull out unless the reparations were capped at a maximum set number 3) attempt to strong arm my allies into getting their way 4) slander and attack RoK about an imaginary reparations demand that never existed nor was requested by RoK .gov Please Blue Lightning, throw us another dog bone! *sigh* 1) Again, dick move. However, it was strategically sound. Probably why he resigned. Luckily, though, the dick move didn't go through and the strategic planning did! 2) I believe it is any alliance's right to leave if they dislike terms being presented. This is an argument over sovereignty, isn't it? 3) That's called politics. I do believe your side has done it. 4) I do not believe that you can prove they intentionally slandered anyone, can you? This thread was created to further provoke someone that no one believed because they had NO proof. Regardless, that wasn't the point of my statement. I meant that Karma has failed to be civil, only when convenient to certain alliances, long before this thread. Before this war, we had such a thing as "private channels" and resolving things properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 You are getting so much closer to the answer. Sorry, you lost me. I'm afraid I'm kinda dumb and can't read into things much, could you spell it out for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts