Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 It appears they're more than willing to fight. Even if they don't win the war, they would have accomplished their goal. Hell I am surprised they havent checked, NSO has been on a war footing for sometime now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Oh cry me a river. The irony in this post is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 We didnt start this fight Good call; TDO started it by recruiting NSO members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 This shows the first signs of what many suspected would happen post-Karma War as several neutrals jumped up in the sanctioned alliance rankings -- people were going to agitate and try to pick them off simply because they can.NSO is obviously the kind of alliance that will push any advantage if there is no perceived threat, and also the kind of alliance willing to use the strength of Frostbite to protect it from the consequences of aggression. TDO and GPA can't respond with military, nor could GOP or Grey Council -- Frostbite would presumably defend NSO and nuke the neutrals to oblivion. Presumably NSO will face no repercussions for this, letting the world know that neutrals are fair game. I suspect this is the first of really aggressive actions against neutrals by similarly amoral alliances. (No offense intended there, NSO is RPing its code.) What would be very interesting to see in response to this would be a bloc of neutrals. All equally committed to their neutrality, aligned only to those agreeing not to treaty outside of the bloc, only to those committed to the same neutrality. I'm thinking they are going to need it to present sufficient strength (particularly nuclear strength they lack individually) to pose a sufficient deterrent to these kinds of actions now that they have some prominence in the Sanctions Race. The sheer numbers of such a bloc would probably better protect their preferred way of playing the game and from these types of attacks. Out of curiosity, I forget, was Moldavi in charge of NPO for the NPO beatdown of GPA? I'm thinking it was Moos by then. Yeah, had to have been. I would honestly be rather disappointed if people took this as an open invitation to screw with neutral alliances. Also Ivan hadn't been in charge of NPO when GPA was attacked for nearly a year and a half. DON'T FORGET TO MENTION THIS ISN'T A PRISON. This isn't a prison. I think the analogy is quite apt in this case, actually. And analogies, by their very nature, are used so to help people understand a concept they're having trouble understanding; I for one am having trouble understanding why NSO would violate other alliances' sovereignty like this, and the analogy is essentially what I've come up with in my head as your motives. Analogies in political discourse, at least around here, are almost always terrible. Especially when they're used to describe a situation people don't agree with, or to make a political point, or something else. They always end up distorting the original situation into something completely different, while doing so in a way that has enough superficial similarities for people to assume its an accurate representation. For example, nothing about that analogy is correct, but you think it's apt (as do others, I'm sure). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 The irony in this post is amazing. Especially since I am not a member of TDO and have been flying this forum pip for many weeks right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So suddenly it's TDO's fault that you guys initiated what normally would consist of an act of war against them? Nothing is stopping them from acting on it if they consider it an act of war. !@#$ or get off the pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 While I love my sith brothers and allies I have to say that' what they did is tremendously disrespectful. I could compare it to some guy inviting your girlfriend to date, while it's only up to her accept or deny the invite and if she accepts means that she worth nothing, the act of invite someone that you know that have a boyfriend is totaly disrespectful. OOC: I follow the same philosophy in real life. I won't care if a guy does. I'll outgame him in every way possible, but if he ends up being better, whatever, I lost her. Time to move on. No need to get upset over someone who is not loyal to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So suddenly it's TDO's fault that you guys initiated what normally would consist of an act of war against them? This was a silly argument last night and it's still silly today. What we did was not in any sense an act of war, and I am well aware that similar actions seldom end in war. To assume that the natural response is to go to war is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Well a combined GPA-TDO force stats wise would be pretty large and obviously stronger then NSO and i kinda have to agree but if its a 1 v 1 they wont need that much help. but if TDO wants any respect and to get out of this alive there gonna have to fight.and KagetheSecond just because they can talk big doesn't mean they could fight those overwhelming odds. So they are going to curb stomp a popular alliance and their allies over a little poaching? Jeese... and I thought the world had moved on from such "criminal" acts of aggression; and was now focused on CB Purity, and reciprocality. Alliance wide ZI for some private messages... good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bart416 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 i know you guys are all about your stats and all, but seriously if you lose a couple of members b/c of this, so what? nothing o fvalue would be lost. A neutral alliance that loses members loses its value. The value of a neutral alliance isn't defined by in game statistics but by the size of the alliance (community) around it. I find this highly amusing. Can NSO please hurry up and ruin their alliance so i win my bet? Thanks. You underestimate TDO in terms of military. Where have we dishonored our good name or broken any commitments? Well, the question is if you ever had a good name or any commitments. I mean you are Sith... The only people we'd be able to get would be non neutrals who don't belong in your alliance anyway. If anything, we are helping to ensure you are what you say you are. The very fact that y'all are complaining about this "poaching" proves nothing but that you are afraid of being exposed as unneutral. Well, TDO is one of the older alliances, and it has been neutral to every conflict since. That pretty much makes them neutral. And by the way, I have yet to hear them articulate an argument against recruiting from their ranks- they merely appeal to arbitrary community norms. Consider it from a utilitarian perspective. Recruiting nations form them will not harm their ability to carry out their neutral policies, as one nation can be neutral just as well as 1000, whereas any nation we recruit from them will increase our ability to carry out policies, since more nations will allow us to project more power. We are helping ourselves while, in terms of consequences, are not hurting them. From a utilitarian perspective, then, what we did was quite a good thing. You're wrong on this one. If a neutral alliance loses members it loses its main asset. Neutral alliances also use the safety in numbers concept. A large neutral alliance won't get attacked as easily as a small one. I'm fairly certain if a 30 member neutral alliance posted a reply to your poaching messages like TDO just did that they would be at war already right now. In other words, bigger neutral alliance = safer neutral alliance. Additionally if a neutral alliance loses members it loses its main reason for existence. Most people that join neutral alliances do so for the community. Most neutral alliances have active boards and private irc channels. In other words, by losing members you're killing off their community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 This isn't a prison. It used to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Nothing is stopping them from acting on it if they consider it an act of war. !@#$ or get off the pot. Haha this is so gonna backfire. Im just gonna sit back now and enjoy the show. Right now, you feel secure, eh? Yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Especially since I am not a member of TDO and have been flying this forum pip for many weeks right? You're bawwing just as much as them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agafaba Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 lol that was a very Sith like action. I hope that it was done for that exact reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So they are going to curb stomp a popular alliance and their allies over a little poaching? Jeese... and I thought the world had moved on from such "criminal" acts of aggression; and was now focused on CB Purity, and reciprocality. Alliance wide ZI for some private messages... good one. Wow this is so off base I am not sure where to start but I will anyways: No one said they would be curb stomped. They poached the entire alliance. Most of the world did; NSO apparently did not. Responding would not be "aggression." It would be one of the more valid CBs since I have been playing CN. It would probably not be alliance wide ZI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 It used to be. So now we're punching a guy in what used to be a prison? Are we still discussing the analogy, or is this some new tangent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 You're bawwing just as much as them. Finding someone's (or an alliance's) actions despicable does not mean bawwing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Good call. That TDO and others were refusing to accept the reality that you can not continue negotiations after they have ended is hardly our fault. Especially when they indicated their agreement with that view to begin with. Well, I guess your sense of how diplomacy works is somewhat skewed after all. That tends to happen with amateurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Haha this is so gonna backfire. Im just gonna sit back now and enjoy the show. Right now, you feel secure, eh?Yeah. Is that supposed to be some sort of veiled threat? If so, just man up and come out with it. Edited July 3, 2009 by youwish959 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Well, I guess your sense of how diplomacy works is somewhat skewed after all. That tends to happen with amateurs. I was under the understanding that Ivan is the only person authorized to make decisions in NSO's behalf. Can lower government officials make alliance policy as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I was under the understanding that Ivan is the only person authorized to make decisions in NSO's behalf.Can lower government officials make alliance policy as well? When Ivan is not available the Sith Lords are entrusted with the ability to make alliance decisions (see: GOP thread). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbulaM1 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So many of you just went to war over precieved wrongs and rights in the game, yet sit here and debate whether this is wrong or right? Bloody hell alliances are just as ignorant as they where when they followed NPO to their death. Sadly nothing has changed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Haha this is so gonna backfire. Im just gonna sit back now and enjoy the show. Right now, you feel secure, eh?Yeah. Good idea. You've done enough to dispel any illusions about the quality of your posts in this topic for today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I was under the understanding that Ivan is the only person authorized to make decisions in NSO's behalf.Can lower government officials make alliance policy as well? Lower government officials making policy? Where did this happen? Surely you dont mean the Dark Council that is empowered to act in Ivan's behalf by the charter. No way. Surely you're making a legitimate point here. Please elaborate, Id love to see this example of someone overstepping their authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Is that supposed to be some sort of veiled threat? If so, just man up and come out with it. Thats left for you to worry about. 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.