KinKiac Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm fairly sure nobody said TDO was uninvolved here, but they are a neutral alliance in wars and such. But people are saying they can not react to an aggressive and disrespectful act with aggression. Being a politically neutral alliance does not mean a damn thing with regards to how an alliance has to react to a situation like this. While I will admit chances are they wouldnt, but it doesnt mean they wont, and if they had attacked the NSO, or at least declared, that would not make them not neutral anymore. We are the Sith. We do not hide our passion or true feelings. What in the hell does that mean? Are you saying your true passion and feelings lead you to act in a disrespectful manner? Your post is nonsense, just like all the other posts citing the "passion" of the sith. Many of you have shown your true colors here, and I personally have lost a lot of respect for an alliance that I previously held in high regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 OOC: Done for the same reason. To see the look of indignation on the other guys face. I believe we've accomplished our somewhat obvious objective spectacularly. Feel free to not see the obvious. If that's how you want to roll, then feel free. However, the law of natural consequences will eventually tap you on the shoulder. What exactly is the difference between morality and ethics? Valhalla deciding that August will be "Nuke a 30 Nation Alliance Month" and then randomly nuking nations within NS range of its nations would be immoral. Chefjoe accepting $30 million and 500 tech to appoint me his second in command would be unethical, but not immoral. Ethics generally covers those guiding principles of right behavior that are not part of conventional morality. Ethical systems as a rule are generally more flexible and more centered on the individual than systems of morality, though I've seen arguments that equate the two. Note that things that are unethical or immoral are not necessarily illegal (committing adultery with a junior office worker and then promoting her into a prime junior executive position for example...immoral, unethical but not illegal if you work in the private sector). That is a separate subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 If that's how you want to roll, then feel free. However, the law of natural consequences will eventually tap you on the shoulder.Valhalla deciding that August will be "Nuke a 30 Nation Alliance Month" and then randomly nuking nations within NS range of its nations would be immoral. Chefjoe accepting $30 million and 500 tech to appoint me his second in command would be unethical, but not immoral. Ethics generally covers those guiding principles of right behavior that are not part of conventional morality. Ethical systems as a rule are generally more flexible and more centered on the individual than systems of morality, though I've seen arguments that equate the two. Note that things that are unethical or immoral are not necessarily illegal (committing adultery with a junior office worker and then promoting her into a prime junior executive position for example...immoral, unethical but not illegal if you work in the private sector). That is a separate subject. What if you don't care about such things as ethics and morals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 What if you don't care about such things as ethics and morals? You risk being featured in someone's DoW. As I said, natural consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 What if you don't care about such things as ethics and morals? Then you end up being logical. Which isn't such a bad thing in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 We arent acting like we own the planet. Were acting like we dont care what you think.Colossal difference. Actually those two things are pretty closely intertwined. NPO didn't care what people thought of them either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Destruction Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Actually those two things are pretty closely intertwined. NPO didn't care what people thought of them either... I wonder why... ever take a look at who the head of NSO is, and who the first leader of NPO was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyroman Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm curious why everyone's making a big deal about other people's business. I encourage all of you who are morally opposed to this to attack on behalf of the TDO/all the alliances mentioned in OP. I think, otherwise, it goes without saying that the NSO doesn't care what you have to say. This was 57 pages not worth reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) This was 57 pages of PR for the NSO, they knew TDO wouldn't do anything, and as someone said before, we won't be talking about this tomorrow. Edited July 4, 2009 by Ricardo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 NSO doesn't care what you have to say In a game that so heavily revolves around the actions, politics, and reputations between alliances, you would have to wonder why anyone would make the terrible blunder of sticking their diplomatic heads in the sand and ignoring what the community of the cyberverse is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm curious why everyone's making a big deal about other people's business. I encourage all of you who are morally opposed to this to attack on behalf of the TDO/all the alliances mentioned in OP. I think, otherwise, it goes without saying that the NSO doesn't care what you have to say. This was 57 pages not worth reading. I echo my superior's statement in this. I realize we all want our opinions heard, however at this point I think it's clear. The majority of public opinion think this is bad and NSO should feel bad; and they do. So let NSO and TDO resolve this, as they've both already said they're making headway. It of course comes to mind that this post will either be overlooked, or will have the rebuttal of "I have the right to posting my opinion" that we so often hear these days, and pretty much consists of the wit and focus of all arguments. Agree to disagree, or fight. And seeing as the spectators won't be doing much fighting, I highly recommend the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) I'm curious why everyone's making a big deal about other people's business. I encourage all of you who are morally opposed to this to attack on behalf of the TDO/all the alliances mentioned in OP. I think, otherwise, it goes without saying that the NSO doesn't care what you have to say. This was 57 pages not worth reading. Oh great, the dreaded "do something about it" argument Edited July 4, 2009 by mrcalkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyroman Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 In a game that so heavily revolves around the actions, politics, and reputations between alliances, you would have to wonder why anyone would make the terrible blunder of sticking their diplomatic heads in the sand and ignoring what the community of the cyberverse is saying. You have yet to understand the full size of Ivan's balls, and you're quite mistaken if you think Dopp's are going to be much smaller (though they are). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I realize we all want our opinions heard, however at this point I think it's clear. So the clear option was to post and keep this thread alive? If people still want to weigh in on the topic, then the thread isn't done. Sure the conflict may be resolved, but there still may be debate left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 You have yet to understand the full size of Ivan's balls, and you're quite mistaken if you think Dopp's are going to be much smaller (though they are). I will admit then when I ponder the intricate web of cybernations politics, Ivan Moldavi's testicles don't generally come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm curious why everyone's making a big deal about other people's business. I encourage all of you who are morally opposed to this to attack on behalf of the TDO/all the alliances mentioned in OP. I think, otherwise, it goes without saying that the NSO doesn't care what you have to say. This was 57 pages not worth reading. I think things were resolved between the two a few pages back with NSO giving an apology TDO found acceptable, so the thread could of ended back there. Although the thread will probably drag on for a bit with people arguing who missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 You might actually have to read some war guides Also, please don't compare us to Polaris, even we aren't backstabbers. You know, I am quite sympathetic to NPO' plight, but for NPO of all people to Call Polaris backstabbers just makes me want to scream and pull out my hair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyroman Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I think things were resolved between the two a few pages back with NSO giving an apology TDO found acceptable, so the thread could of ended back there. Although the thread will probably drag on for a bit with people arguing who missed it. I wasn't made aware of that, like I said, 57 pages not worth reading . Thanks for letting me know though, I'll just back out of this thread. But before I do, as per request, I'd like to make a shout out to Heft and his muddy hippo balls. They're hueg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 So the clear option was to post and keep this thread alive? If people still want to weigh in on the topic, then the thread isn't done. Sure the conflict may be resolved, but there still may be debate left. Debate and PR are best left for an unresolved issue, from where I stand. Fact is if the people debating at this point are convinced by the arguments of others they don't deserve to be representing their side anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinKiac Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 First, I authorized the message. Period. Me. Actually, from what I have been told an apology has already been issued to certain parties that recognized this for what it was, a stunt that was admittedly in poor taste for the current political climate, but a stunt just the same.Those that wish to escalate this into something more and have decided to come here crying can get a tissue from me if they want but that is about it. I have 2 questions for Ivan, if he is even listening. Why would you authorize a stunt that you admit was in poor taste? Do you think it is OK to mass message entire alliances, neutral or not, for recruitment purposes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Good to see NSO apologize for this distasteful act. Although I don't agree with neutralism, I don't agree with undue aggression either. Would've been nice if the apology wasn't hidden under 50 pages of text though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 That "certain point of view" argument only gets you so far. Beyond that you enter the realms of moral and ethical relativism respectively and then its a short trip to Francoism.Or would you have me believe that the serial killer acted ethically because he sterilized the surgical tools he used to dissect his victims? Hal, you would have so much more calm if you would just give into the Dark Side, it is strong in you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Then you end up being logical. Which isn't such a bad thing in my opinion. I think you are confusing being logical with being an atheist. Systems of morality and ethics do not require a God. They do however require their own internal logic. OOC: To be strictly logical only means that you that your system of ethics is very rigid. Logically it could also be argued that the benefits of belief in God out weight any possible benefits, since if God exists and you believe, you get to enjoy eternal happiness, rather than settling for happiness merely on this world. Even if God doesn't exist, you've lost nothing and gain the goodwill of many fellow believers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I have 2 questions for Ivan, if he is even listening. Why would you authorize a stunt that you admit was in poor taste? Do you think it is OK to mass message entire alliances, neutral or not, for recruitment purposes? 1. Because I do not necessarily care for the conventions of the status quo on what dictates "poor taste". 2. Yes, I believe it should be a normal activity within the Cyberverse, as it used to be. If a nation wishes to leave because of a recruitment message then they were not truly loyal to you anyway and you should want them to seek out greener pastures, just as I would want those not loyal to myself to seek out other avenues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrklarinet Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 1. Because I do not necessarily care for the conventions of the status quo on what dictates "poor taste".2. Yes, I believe it should be a normal activity within the Cyberverse, as it used to be. If a nation wishes to leave because of a recruitment message then they were not truly loyal to you anyway and you should want them to seek out greener pastures, just as I would want those not loyal to myself to seek out other avenues. Sounds like everyone has the green light to recruit NSO members, then. 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.