ColchestersKing Posted July 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I personally like LOD dispite him being one of the higher ranking alliance members (OOC i was a different character back then) he was one of the few that came down to talk to us and was one of the few that didnt spew the party line when it came to discussion so i have no doubt that his reasons for leaving where important and LOD though it may not mean much what ever these people say and ive seen a lot of things from "new" people who wernt there when i was which really wasnt that long ago.......you have my admaration ad respect....o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 I personally like LOD dispite him being one of the higher ranking alliance members (OOC i was a different character back then) he was one of the few that came down to talk to us and was one of the few that didnt spew the party line when it came to discussion so i have no doubt that his reasons for leaving where important and LOD though it may not mean much what ever these people say and ive seen a lot of things from "new" people who wernt there when i was which really wasnt that long ago.......you have my admaration ad respect....o/ Thank you very much. It actually does mean quite a bit to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Schmidt Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 ...I like whole "voting with your feet" Option. Staying with an alliance is supporting that alliance and its actions, leaving if they do something "bad" ["s added by Walt Schmidt] is usually the only way most members have to influence policy. Leaving then is good... Hmmm... I swear fealty, either directly or indirectly, to my alliance; especially during wartime. I believe they've done something bad and decide I must leave to make my point. For me that doesn't fly; I have just shown my allegiance is not inviolate. Why would my next alliance ever trust me? Rather, if I believe my alliance has done something bad, I would stay with my alliance during the war, be vocal with my lack of support both internally and externally as long as my external statements never violated my current alliance's confidence's. If I am 'thorough' enough to have evolved a POV not in agreement with my current alliance, I should be enough of a wordsmith to ensure I did not expose any confidential data. For me not only doesn't it fly, I don't buy that POV, TypoNinja... but I do, at least, see it. Thanks! Anyone else have a reason why leaving one's alliance while the alliance is at war is anything other than dishonorable; this with or without one's leader's permission? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Schmidt Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Well I can imagine that if that alliance no longer wants to be associated with you but doesn't want to expel you and you both want to go separate ways. Then if the leaders give you permission I think that leaving during war would be acceptable. However, that's a pretty specific set of circumstances and pretty much the only ones under which I would consider it the proper thing to do. Another POV I can 'see' but believe a snowball in hell would have a higher probability of survival than that would ever have a chance of happening. A real classy thing to do would be to go rogue on your own alliance after arguing with them. That's how I wanna go out. If your definition of ROGUE is similar to mine, then as we use to say in the day of dial-up & BBSs... GMTA [ smile ] Thanks Drostan. Still think leaving one's alliance during wartime is traitorous. The ONLY way I can think of such a thing sorta-working is if the individual re-rolls -- sorta like seppuku and then reincarnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Anyone else have a reason why leaving one's alliance while the alliance is at war is anything other than dishonorable; this with or without one's leader's permission? [OOC]I decided that this was a game, and I wanted to have fun. That's why I left to try and make my own alliance.[/OOC] Honor is a subjective term. Some say fighting a war is honorable, and some argue that war is murder. I don't believe you need to subject yourself to anyone's definition of honor other than your own. My definition of honor is staying true to yourself and others. I did exactly that. In that way, it was not dishonorable - unless of course you're not using my definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 Can someone explain to me -- generic is good -- under what circumstances leaving one's alliance while the alliance is at war is anything other than dishonorable; this with or without one's leader's permission. I look at it in two ways usually, barring some exceptions. There is the person who doesn't fight or take damage and jumps ship. This person, barring a very good reason, gets no respect from me. Then, you get the person who went to ZI or took all the damage they realistically can and then leaves giving all they could to their alliance. While still not always favorable, in NPO's circumstance wherein the war doesn't have an end in the foreseeable future by the way negotiations are going, these people have a legitimate reason to not be harassed while leaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Hmmm...I swear fealty, either directly or indirectly, to my alliance; especially during wartime. I believe they've done something bad and decide I must leave to make my point. For me that doesn't fly; I have just shown my allegiance is not inviolate. Why would my next alliance ever trust me? Rather, if I believe my alliance has done something bad, I would stay with my alliance during the war, be vocal with my lack of support both internally and externally as long as my external statements never violated my current alliance's confidence's. If I am 'thorough' enough to have evolved a POV not in agreement with my current alliance, I should be enough of a wordsmith to ensure I did not expose any confidential data. For me not only doesn't it fly, I don't buy that POV, TypoNinja... but I do, at least, see it. Thanks! Anyone else have a reason why leaving one's alliance while the alliance is at war is anything other than dishonorable; this with or without one's leader's permission? Well I don't mean taking off the first time you have a disagreement with policy (like for example Fran bailing on VE in record time as soon as she didn't like the terms) We have leaders for a reason, they make decisions, you may not always like them but they are required to be made. You take a balance, if you agree with most of the decisions made and only disagree with a few then you've got your self a good home. But if a pattern of behaviour gets established over a long period of time then yes leaving would be appropriate. Doing so before a war breaks out would be preferable, but you never know what action might be the straw that broke the camels back. While I do hold a low opinion of people who bail as soon as the going gets tough, I think there are legitimate reasons for people to leave an alliance, even at war, and refuse to jump to a negative assumption without cause. However that said, anyone who doesn't bother to discuss their exit with leadership before going messed up. Plus the double standard bugs me, we condemn the members for the actions of the leadership by telling that being a member means they are supporting the actions of the alliance but we also troll the ones who leave? We can't have it both ways. Edited July 10, 2009 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Anyone else have a reason why leaving one's alliance while the alliance is at war is anything other than dishonorable; this with or without one's leader's permission? Dishonourable this, traitorous that. Don't you ever get sick of being bitter and twisted at people all the time? Yes he left your alliance and yes I can understand if you don't want him back because he is unreliable in times of stress, but there is no need for the personal way in which you're taking this. Someone who spent so long in an active role does not suddenly become the great evil when he leaves deep into a war, so please get over it and move on already. Edited July 10, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen MoP Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [OOC]I decided that this was a game, and I wanted to have fun. That's why I left to try and make my own alliance.[/OOC] [OOC]That's really all the explanation that is needed in my book.[/OOC] To get back IC and on topic of this tangent: What I'm not clear on is, if you left to make your own alliance, why are you in MK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Schmidt Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 [OOC]I decided that this was a game, and I wanted to have fun. That's why I left to try and make my own alliance.[/OOC] [OOC]That I understand... but IC it does have a cost [ smile ][/OOC] Honor is a subjective term. Some say fighting a war is honorable, and some argue that war is murder. I don't believe you need to subject yourself to anyone's definition of honor other than your own. My definition of honor is staying true to yourself and others. I did exactly that. In that way, it was not dishonorable - unless of course you're not using my definition. Granted, one must be true to one's own code. As example, my code can be summed up in four statements: As I have previously published, My Three Laws of Alliance (with apologies to the late, great Isaac Asimov). A Foundation To Live By: My Three Laws of Alliance are: 1 - My Comrades - first and foremost! 2 - Myself - a damn close second. 3 - All Others - can go scratch... Oh yes - there is a 'zeroeths' law (apologies again to Mr. Asimov) that precedes and encompasses the other three: 0 - Death To All Traitors - Shai Dorsai! As such, and dUE to your own past actions, I will always be looking at your words and your future actions with a jaundice-eye. So as it was written, so let it be then done... Shai Dorsai! [OOC] I wish you good luck with the tough row you chose to hoe... [/OOC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NationReaper Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 As other cries have been heard...Friends > Infra Those who roll together reroll together.. NPO will surely join them with their strong call. Pride before peace! NPO has been defeated. Their crimes have been tallied. They can squirm all they like, but they have been presented quite simple terms, easy ones. They can easily pay them off, and all crying about the harshness can simply come down to a reluctance to take your medicine. You were the aggressors. The world said no. You can give up now and listen to them, or be crushed further. uhm...wut? where do you get off thinking the terms are simple? here..im gonna go kick your puppy..sentence me to life in prison..thats how imma compare these terms..maybe a little far fetched but it gets the point across...these terms are far from simple...and to add..i dont see much squirming going on..if i recall talking to quite a few NPO members..they seemed pretty up beat and happy..i just laugh at the fact that when all their members reach the low point Karma wont have enough low level troops to kick the doors down of their experienced enemies..so when that happens and NPO picks on Karma's little nations and causes people to quick and/or not join those alliances..i'll lol just a little bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 10, 2009 Report Share Posted July 10, 2009 (edited) Considering we've pretty much levelled off in terms of losses, and RoK is dropping like a stone, I just don't see the urgency, nor the dire and pressing need to sign brutal peace terms. We're being asked to pretty much give up lots and lots and lots of concessions, allow ourselves to be destroyed etc in exchange for what? Peace? I'll take war, thanks. Edited July 10, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 [OOC]That's really all the explanation that is needed in my book.[/OOC]To get back IC and on topic of this tangent: What I'm not clear on is, if you left to make your own alliance, why are you in MK? I thought I explained that earlier, but I'll do so again. After I had resigned, those who were going to leave with me to create this alliance decided against doing so. I was left in the wind, and had two choices. Either I would die and leave Bob forever, or I would move on to the alliance that was going to be the protector of my new alliance. I chose the latter of the two options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Schmidt Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Dishonourable this, traitorous that. Don't you ever get sick of being bitter and twisted at people all the time... Someone who spent so long in an active role does not suddenly become the great evil when he leaves deep into a war... [OOC] Huh, a civil discussion is 'being bitter and twisted at people all the time,' huh?[/OOC] We have our word, we have our honor, we have our allegiances to which we pledge fealty. I suggest especially during a war the longer one has had an active role in an alliance, the stronger a bond is expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 No, leaving in the middle of a war makes you a deserter and an outcast. Leaving after the war makes you an ex-member. You chose to be a deserter. So how long is it going to be before LoD becomes the reason that all deserters from this war left, and how long will he be hunted for his role in plotting the Pacifican downfall? My bets are on 3 months and 2 years respectively. Anyone want to put some wagers on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 So how long is it going to be before LoD becomes the reason that all deserters from this war left, and how long will he be hunted for his role in plotting the Pacifican downfall? Probably the next person who leaves is going to be blamed on me. I think one already has been blamed on me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Considering we've pretty much levelled off in terms of losses, and RoK is dropping like a stone, I just don't see the urgency, nor the dire and pressing need to sign brutal peace terms.We're being asked to pretty much give up lots and lots and lots of concessions, allow ourselves to be destroyed etc in exchange for what? Peace? I'll take war, thanks. Once again, if this is your thinking then I fully expect NPO and you in particular to stop complaining. I'd like to see if your comrades enjoy you digging them into deeper holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 So how long is it going to be before LoD becomes the reason that all deserters from this war left, and how long will he be hunted for his role in plotting the Pacifican downfall? I think it's a safe bet that Crohl's leaving will never be blamed on LoD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) No, leaving in the middle of a war makes you a deserter and an outcast. Leaving after the war makes you an ex-member. You chose to be a deserter. Give me a !@#$@#$ break, like he was contributing at this point after his nation was already lost fighting for your retarded cause. Save deserter for those who run away crying in the face of an enemy and stop looking like a bunch of bitter my idols. So how long is it going to be before LoD becomes the reason that all deserters from this war left, and how long will he be hunted for his role in plotting the Pacifican downfall?My bets are on 3 months and 2 years respectively. Anyone want to put some wagers on it? At this point its pretty easy to predict, just have to look at how the last half-dozen or so "traitors" were handled for the requisite data. Edited July 11, 2009 by mrcalkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 (edited) Probably the next person who leaves is going to be blamed on me. I think one already has been blamed on me That's how it starts. Soon the people who left before you did will be blamed on you, they'll be called your conspirators whom you were going to start the alliance with. Of course those who left after have been corrupted by your traitorous ways, and whether they come to MK or not, it'll be laid at your feet. But I'm sure you'll love all the attention. After all, you'll be painted as the mastermind plotting the downfall of Pacifica, and make you sound much more epic than you ever actually were. Who doesn't love free reputation boosting courtesy of Pacifican PR? I think it's a safe bet that Crohl's leaving will never be blamed on LoD. You underestimate the NPO's ability to ignore facts, logic, and reason to achieve the ends they want. In this case, the NPO wants a target to place blame on. Whatever the circumstances of Crohl leaving, within a few months it will be LoDs fault. Edited July 11, 2009 by Seerow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I think it's a safe bet that Crohl's leaving will never be blamed on LoD. I would hope it's not. He left at the beginning of the war. Then again, people like to forget fact in place of propaganda all too often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Give me a !@#$@#$ break, like he was contributing at this point after his nation was already lost fighting for your retarded cause. Save deserter for those who run away crying in the face of an enemy and stop looking like a bunch of bitter my idols. I like how your perverted sense of "justice" includes sanctuary and government positions for cowards and deserters. NPO's cause is to prevent other alliances from spying on them. Glad to know you wouldn't have a problem with people spying on your alliance. I guess you couldn't say LoD ran away crying because he was welcomed with open arms by MK and given the playbook on how to insult his former alliance and those he called his comrades for so long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 That's how it starts. Soon the people who left before you did will be blamed on you, they'll be called your conspirators whom you were going to start the alliance with. Of course those who left after have been corrupted by your traitorous ways, and whether they come to MK or not, it'll be laid at your feet.But I'm sure you'll love all the attention. After all, you'll be painted as the mastermind plotting the downfall of Pacifica, and make you sound much more epic than you ever actually were. Who doesn't love free reputation boosting courtesy of Pacifican PR? Hey, I am epic B) Anywho, I do have a certain mastermind aura around me, don't you think? All those plans I've written to take down Pacifica, overthrow is from both the inside and outside, and all the time that I spent trying to improve the Order while in the Order. Not to mention that I've not done anything to hurt Pacifica from outside it either. Then again, like you said, people like to forget facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vapo Patria Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 Can someone explain to me -- generic is good -- under what circumstances leaving one's alliance while the alliance is at war is anything other than dishonorable; this with or without one's leader's permission. Only when one's alliance is the New Pacific Order is leaving your alliance during wartime honorable. Anything less is treachery. Besides, the war is essentially over, regardless of when Pacifica gets their terms. Not everyone is keen to stick in a sinking, bureaucratic mess such as NPO, and I don't really fault them for not doing so. It's not like anyone leaving now who did not go into peace mode has fought for their alliance, anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 11, 2009 Report Share Posted July 11, 2009 I like how your perverted sense of "justice" includes sanctuary and government positions for cowards and deserters.NPO's cause is to prevent other alliances from spying on them. Glad to know you wouldn't have a problem with people spying on your alliance. I guess you couldn't say LoD ran away crying because he was welcomed with open arms by MK and given the playbook on how to insult his former alliance and those he called his comrades for so long. So instead of just a deserter, I'm a coward as well? Wouldn't you think that a coward would have left at the first signs of danger instead of staying through until his nation was destroyed? Like I said - facts. As for my government position, I was chosen because of my experience, and my level of activity. Again - facts. I ran away crying? Once again wrong. My resignation thread actually said I still liked the Order but wanted something different. After posting the resignation thread, I changed my AA to none, removed Custom 3, and the NPO part from my nation bio. I then waited for those who said they were going to leave to leave, but they did not. I chose to go to MK, the alliance that was going to be my new alliances protector, instead of quitting CN. As for a playbook on how to insult the Order... I don't need it. I already know what I dislike about the Order. Along with wanting to create a new alliance, the reasons I disliked the Order also caused me to leave. Sileath, stick to facts. Creating lies about those who will actively call you out on them is pointless. 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.