HellAngel Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Heft you unbelievable !@#$%^&.Are you implying good sir that TDO didn't seek the proper private channel diplomatic methods of handling this situation, and instead chose to piggyback onto GOP's announcement in an effort to play the victim card? How do you live with yourself? Or you totally missed Heft's sarcasm. Which you did. Hah, if it was: Fair enough But you're the first one to point it out, out of like 5 people argueing with me, so im just gonna assume he wasnt being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Not especially related to this incident...Why do people think being neutral means you will not defend yourself? Being neutral means you take no side in a war or politically but it does not remove the ability to defend themselves. If TDO considers this issue an act of aggression then if they do attack the NSO it is by no means an act that betrays their neutrality. They're not neutral, they're independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 This whole thread Why is this even here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 we recruited ANYONE not wearing a tag tho. lol. and plus, i wasnt even online for that, i heard about it later Whatever man, I'm just funnin ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I'd just like to briefly point out the fact that recruiting non-tagged IRC nicks would have been MUCH more stylish. Come on, NSO.. catch up with the times, PLEASE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Just because you hopped on the side of one of the biggest curbs stomps ever doesn't make you all that and a bag of chips. And recruiting from neutrals does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Hah, if it was: Fair enough But you're the first one to point it out, out of like 5 people argueing with me, so im just gonna assume he wasnt being sarcastic. Uh, it wasn't a demand because he was being sarcastic? I think that covers all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 They're not neutral, they're independent. They're not independent, they're just special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Why do people think being neutral means you will not defend yourself? Being neutral means you take no side in a war or politically but it does not remove the ability to defend themselves. If TDO considers this issue an act of aggression then if they do attack the NSO it is by no means an act that betrays their neutrality. I suppose it all depends on context. In a vacuum, that is neutral. But if it is associated with other rhetoric, say, declarations regarding their preferences of other alliances and how they rank them, then it wouldn't be. If they, like certain GPA members did last night, started comparing the merits of IAA to the now disbanded TGR as well as to TJO and so on, then it would be far less neutral, even if it was originally prompted by an act of aggression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 All we received in our attempts to talk to NSO government was a circle of "talk to him, then him, and Ivan is the one that can overrule, but guess what, you won't ever be able to contact Ivan if you tried, so talk to this guy, and when you do, he'll tell you to talk to Ivan" You were in a major discussion with other neutral alliances with the Dark Council, and still let it fly past. You did not continue this discussion, so we thought it was a closed matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Whatever man, I'm just funnin ya i know. plus, like hakai said, we did it better. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 All we received in our attempts to talk to NSO government was a circle of "talk to him, then him, and Ivan is the one that can overrule, but guess what, you won't ever be able to contact Ivan if you tried, so talk to this guy, and when you do, he'll tell you to talk to Ivan" I am unaware of any attempts to contact NSO Gov after that discussion last night, as is Doppelganger (I asked) and anyone else currently online. So I'm left wondering who you actually tried talking to after that conversation last night. Hah, if it was: Fair enough But you're the first one to point it out, out of like 5 people argueing with me, so im just gonna assume he wasnt being sarcastic. No, I very much demand a sincere and public apology for this egregious insult to my honor. They're not neutral, they're independent. I speak for everyone associated with my former alliance when I say "$%&@ you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fear2012 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistledown Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Recruiting from you is okay because it doesn't harm your ability to fulfill your chosen key policy imperatives, as neutrality is not dependent on numbers. In fact, I argued (and you through silence conceded), that the act of recruiting from your alliance increases your level of neutrality by weeding out non-neutrals, making it a net positive for you. Please go back and reread my arguments: they answered all of your objections before you made them. Perhaps neutrality is all you see in a neutral alliance, but clearly plenty of nations are attracted to neutral alliances. If their primary goal were simply to remain neutral, there would be no reason to have a neutral alliance- it'd be easier to simply enter peace mode, and besides fighting off aggressive alliances there would be nothing to keep active nations there. The primary reason for these neutral alliances to exist is for the desire for community, without having to deal with the politics of Bob. By messaging these members and trying to draw them out of the alliance, you are trying to remove members and take them out of the community. The neutral alliances recruit these members for a reason- it's more fun with more diversity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Smiley spam... might want to edit it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Perhaps neutrality is all you see in a neutral alliance, but clearly plenty of nations are attracted to neutral alliances. If their primary goal were simply to remain neutral, there would be no reason to have a neutral alliance- it'd be easier to simply enter peace mode, and besides fighting off aggressive alliances there would be nothing to keep active nations there. The primary reason for these neutral alliances to exist is for the desire for community, without having to deal with the politics of Bob. By messaging these members and trying to draw them out of the alliance, you are trying to remove members and take them out of the community. The neutral alliances recruit these members for a reason- it's more fun with more diversity. By residing on BOB they will at times have to deal with the politics of BOB, whether they like it or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Hey they, join NSO. Now. HOLY !@#$ POACHING!!!! [ooc]Seriously though this thread is rapidly backfiring on the OP.[/ooc] They're not neutral, they're independent. Lol cute. Glad I've wasted the last two months defending your alliance on the forums. Edited July 3, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Why do people think being neutral means you will not defend yourself? Being neutral means you take no side in a war or politically but it does not remove the ability to defend themselves. If TDO considers this issue an act of aggression then if they do attack the NSO it is by no means an act that betrays their neutrality. I don't quite buy into that first part, but typically neutrality = passivity. Either neutral alliances truly have no opinion regarding world events, in which case there's no point being nice to them, or they have a private stance that they refuse to act upon. It doesn't seem that far a stretch to think those who don't stand up for what they believe in are lacking in assertiveness. Edited July 3, 2009 by Prodigal Moon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 All we received in our attempts to talk to NSO government was a circle of "talk to him, then him, and Ivan is the one that can overrule, but guess what, you won't ever be able to contact Ivan if you tried, so talk to this guy, and when you do, he'll tell you to talk to Ivan" Uh huh...Then I guess the logs that Heft posted and have yet to be contradicted are just a fabrication? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I would hope that this is all resolved amicably, although the tone of the posts thus far have been less than conciliatory. Alliance member poaching is merely that; an act of aggression that should be put down and condemned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 And recruiting from neutrals does? Sith do not covet "chips" it makes one fat and weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Perhaps neutrality is all you see in a neutral alliance, but clearly plenty of nations are attracted to neutral alliances. If their primary goal were simply to remain neutral, there would be no reason to have a neutral alliance- it'd be easier to simply enter peace mode, and besides fighting off aggressive alliances there would be nothing to keep active nations there. The primary reason for these neutral alliances to exist is for the desire for community, without having to deal with the politics of Bob. By messaging these members and trying to draw them out of the alliance, you are trying to remove members and take them out of the community. The neutral alliances recruit these members for a reason- it's more fun with more diversity. This is just another argument for us. We will only be able to successfully recruit the outcasts and malcontents of your fine community. Thus, we increase the integrity of your community by removing those people who degrade it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandellav Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Why would the star wars theme influence who we recruit?Sith are naturally evil. It is who we are. To embrace the dark side is to be truly free. Shame, shame NSO. You should have tried recruiting from the neutral alliances for =LOST= instead. You know, the original and truest Star Wars-themed alliance.Seriously though, this is pure Sith evil at its worst. I hope TDO, GPA, and TGC stand up for their respective memberships and their sovereignty in this matter.--Mandellav Perhaps that clears up the intentions of my statement. I was merely jesting at the idea that it would be spiffy of the NSO to hold a recruitment drive for us here at =LOST= for some theme overlap. NSO...=LOST=...Heh, it's two letters out of five shared. I get so confused sometimes with all these acronyms floating around like training remotes at a Jedi Academy. And as to embracing the dark side to be truly free: I always put my money on the ending of surrender terms to set me free. Once again, I jest. *Edited for spelling error Edited July 3, 2009 by Mandellav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesterxo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 HOLY !@#$ POACHING!!!! [ooc]Seriously though this thread is rapidly backfiring on the OP.[/ooc] Actually, if you look at the tread, its all just the same people from the same alliance again and again, there is no backfire if its all comming from a couple of sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I would hope that this is all resolved amicably, although the tone of the posts thus far have been less than conciliatory. Alliance member poaching is merely that; an act of aggression that should be put down and condemned. Are you the worlds juror and executioner now? 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.