TehChron Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Its a little difficult to keep track of around 5+ NSO member posts and who said what. If you could link me to the post you just looked up I would appreciate it. Here you go. Having all the answers really is a burden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) It isn't a bad thing to treat two different groups of things differently if you can isolate reasons for why they ought to be treated differently. And hark, what is that I see up in the smaller numbered pages of this thread? Why it is unrefuted arguments for why the cases of neutral and non neutral alliances ought to be treated differently in this regard! Haha, it's like magic it is. (edit: this was towards youwish959) Edited July 3, 2009 by ender land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Its also a fail analogy, given that no one is neutral in prison and punching someone would likely get you killed in the aftermatch. I will gladly ignore any attempts to use banal stupidity to discredit my analogy, but I will not stand by while you mischaracterize it for missing an obvious point which I very clearly spelled out. I do indeed recognize the likelihood of reciprocal violence in 'the aftermatch' [sic?], thank you very much. Edited July 3, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Here you go.Having all the answers really is a burden He does not answer either question I asked in that post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 He does not answer either question I asked in that post. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume it's because he's not going to be baited by obvious and, quite frankly, irrelevant questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickyman1984 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So, if no CB comes from this, the entire point was to humiliate alliances that don't really trouble anyone? Well that's....quite sith-like of you I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
energizer Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) in b4 lock Lol, wow NSO, for such a young alliance, you have much to learn. Just cause you have Ivan has your head man, doesnt mean yall are immune to political and war failures. Dont forget why ivan left CN in the first place. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this. EDIT : btw, poaching is bad. FYI Edited July 3, 2009 by energizer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume it's because he's not going to be baited by obvious and, quite frankly, irrelevant questions. Baited by irrelevant questions? C'mon, your fellow alliance mates are far better at trying to dismiss someone without addressing their content than this. You can surely do better.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfloyd2002 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 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. I hope you are right, but the message seems clear to me. Neutrals have no allies to jump in to defend them and their nuke counts are comparatively low. NSO screwed with neutral alliances, taunting them to do something about it, recalcitrant in public, essentially continuing the taunting on OWF instead of apologizing. NSO doesn't have the individual NS to pull that off, but gets to rely on the comparative advantage of non-neutrals -- its own treaties -- to bail it out. The neutrals have no real options here. Do nothing and appear the coward or fight back and get smashed by NSO's allies. It would be hard for someone not to learn a lesson from that. I'm also curious as to how this isn't an act of war by NSO. It was more than poaching. It was a direct message to members of a sovereign alliance telling them that their government "muzzle(s) and restrict(s)" them, has "an absence of belief" and is "pathetic" and "impotent." This wasn't just a standard recruiting message that goes out accidentally to noobs. The last line particular is a direct invitation to war as I read it: "Oh, and need more proof of just how pathetic your neutral alliance is? Watch as they respond impotently, if at all" I can't imagine there would be too much complaint about lack of CB following essentially being taunted to war, especially given the lack of apology forthcoming here. You are right on Moldavi, I wasn't even close on the timing. I wasn't around back then, it's just that when one sees someone bullying a neutral, one automatically thinks "Woodstock Massacre." Totally different people and circumstances, admitted, as GPA had some issues then, while here I see nothing at all by the neutrals that brought on this kind of aggressive act other than their perceived vulnerability to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgregory Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 To reply to your utilitarian approach to your recruitment messages I say this. You are totally disregarding the personal beliefs and sovereignty of our alliance. Not to mention that according to Utilitarian theory, you must weigh all the happiness and all the dissatisfaction that a particular action would cause. Depending on how literal you want to take this, this means taking into account more than just the members of our alliance and yours. You would even have to factor in the happiness of your pet dog. If you want to generalize it, TDO as a sovereign alliance, would be effected more than you wish to give credit for if we were to lose a member. It's not just about "completing our goals". Your reasoning and application of the utilitarian approach is flawed in this instance. You also fail to take into account that our members voluntarily join our alliances after being bombarded with recruiting messages from several alliances when they first join. What you essentially are doing is saying that neutral alliance members are incapable of deciding how they want to play this game. Our members do realize their choices out there on Planet Bob and they chose our alliance. Just because we are neutral, does not give you the right to attempt to step on our toes with the message you sent. Some people play CN and want to war, others just want to sit back and just grow our nations. We did not disrespect your choice of gameplay before the message you sent, so please respect ours. That is all we ask. If this is not good enough reason, how about the fact that it has angered our members? Does the anger you caused mean nothing in your utilitarian approach? Not to mention that if this was merely a "hey, join our alliance" announcement, maybe things wouldn't have been so bad. You refuse to take into account the wording of the message which has insulted our alliance. The damage from the message isn't just about recruiting our members but the verbal attack on our alliance's image. (Which is grossly misrepresented in your recruitment message) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omfghi2u2 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 E-bullying at its finest. "hey this alliance is weak, lets recruit their members!" "yeah high five!" Isnt there like a war about this whole bullying stuff on CN? -omfg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Yeah we get it already, you're Sith. You do evil stuff. But being sith doesn't automatically mean you're free to do what you want and bully whoever you want. Even the sith have a reputation, and as some have recently discovered, having a reputation for bullying can really come back and bite you. Edited July 3, 2009 by Tomcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Why is it an act of aggression? As weve already elaborated, neutral alliances are not really harmed by having members leave. They project no power, do not fight wars (ostensibly) and frankly do nothing more than pad stats. Thats about as aggressive as dropping trades with a couple of members of the alliance.If taking a member from an alliance just because they werent a fit were a valid CB, im frankly shocked Athens isnt beating up on MHA even now for taking Sileath. But MHA didn't recruit him. He left on his own accord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Reynolds Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Anyone know why the Grey Council has not weighed in on this topic yet? The NSO have apologised to us via private channels, so we see no reason for us to start a thread on this matter. Being on the grey team gives us a unique perspective on this as we routinely receive recruitment messages from people who are a bit hazy on the difference between team 'none' and an AA setting of 'none'. At least the NSO recruiter actually knows what capital letters are for and didn't offer a $50,000 startup package Our members are all deeply committed to neutrality, and I know that we will not lose a single member to the NSO over this incident given how obvious it is that our two alliances have very different ideals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baden-Württemberg Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Why is it an act of aggression? As weve already elaborated, neutral alliances are not really harmed by having members leave. They project no power, do not fight wars (ostensibly) and frankly do nothing more than pad stats. Thats about as aggressive as dropping trades with a couple of members of the alliance.If taking a member from an alliance just because they werent a fit were a valid CB, im frankly shocked Athens isnt beating up on MHA even now for taking Sileath. Their economic strength is harmed, their community is harmed and their pride is disturbed. So what if people recruited from NSO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesterxo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) The NSO have apologised to us via private channels, so we see no reason for us to start a thread on this matter.Being on the grey team gives us a unique perspective on this as we routinely receive recruitment messages from people who are a bit hazy on the difference between team 'none' and an AA setting of 'none'. At least the NSO recruiter actually knows what capital letters are for and didn't offer a $50,000 startup package Our members are all deeply committed to neutrality, and I know that we will not lose a single member to the NSO over this incident given how obvious it is that our two alliances have very different ideals. I'm glad to see that the Grey Council will not forsake their neutrality. Neutrals Edited July 3, 2009 by jesterxo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo cupier Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Firstly, as TDO founder and Aqua senator, I'm personally offended that nobody sent me a recruitment letter. I demand a low level and cursory apology from somebody over this. Furthermore, have NSO really thought this through? I mean, if a whole bunch of whining, debate-laden peacenik Neutrals WERE all to join NSO in a bow-wave, could you cope with us? Really, you'd end up depressed within days and willing to do anything to disband your alliance within a week or so. C'mon NSO, this wasn't thought through, was it. Let's move on and play nice. Or, dammit, we'll start recruiting your members with a promise of unlimited Neutral Popcorn, or something. Edited July 3, 2009 by Theo Cupier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viluin Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 If they dont give you the respect you want, what will you do about it? since you are a "neutral" alliance, you wont go to war over it right? is there another option? Neutrality means you don't get involved in the business of others, it doesn't mean you won't defend your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Classy stuff. Ever consider that maybe going to war once in a while would make people second guess whether or not little pokes and prods are going to be worth the overall loss? I would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) If I might ask a question, why would the NSO want a bunch of pacifists in its ranks? Edit. Damn, Theo Cupier beat me to it. Edited July 3, 2009 by Azhrarn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesterxo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) FOR THE LAST TIME NEUTRAL IS NOT THE SAME AS PACIFISM!!! GET A FREAKING DICTIONARY!!!! That being said... Theo is right, you don't want us, we're just gonna make you have more headachs then you could possably stand if we were in your alliance. Edited July 3, 2009 by jesterxo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 I will gladly ignore any attempts to use banal stupidity to discredit my analogy, but I will not stand by while you mischaracterize it for missing an obvious point which I very clearly spelled out. I do indeed recognize the likelihood of reciprocal violence in 'the aftermatch' [sic?], thank you very much. I wasnt directly talking to you, actually. But since you were kind enough to read quite a lot onto what I had said, I feel the moral obligation to further explain it to you. Here's your analogy: It's an old cliche that when you first arrive in prison you're supposed to punch the toughest looking guy. Apparently that shows that you're tougher, or crazy, or whatever. I always thought that was pretty stupid. Seems like a great way to insure that guy's gonna try and kick your $@! later. Perhaps it's more prudent to knock out a weaker looking guy, who you know you could beat in a future fight. But then that just defeats the whole purpose of getting respect for the act. In fact, it is likely to have the opposite effect. Notice that you imply that beating a weaker guy would have no consequences, or less consequences than beating a stronger guy. Here's what I said: Its also a fail analogy, given that no one is neutral in prison and punching someone would likely get you killed in the aftermatch. I never said "by the same person" and I thought it was pretty clear that I reffered to that person's friends, given that I went out of my way to say that no one is neutral in prison. One more reason why your analogy does not apply. I think its self evident that on my part there was no attempt to discredit anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 FOR THE LAST TIME NEUTRAL IS NOT THE SAME AS PACIFISM!!! GET A FREAKING DICTIONARY!!!!That being said... Theo is right, you don't want us, we're just gonna make you have more headachs then you could possably stand. So I take it this means war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilzey Land Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) I actually laughed when I read this, if anyone did this, I would've thought it would be NSO. If the neutrals respond, this could get quite interesting... Edit: Reading my post I don't think I clearly stated what I think of this; I can't actually believe anyone would do this, and it's quite a low move by the NSO. Edited July 3, 2009 by Bilzey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 This is a lost case Tyga, I spend all my time in GPA trying to explain it to OWF and I failed miserable. Lost causes are my specialty. 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.