Corinan Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 The reason Frostbite was mentioned, I can reasonably assume, is because you lot appear to support Ivan, and his unjust actions/thoughts. What "unjust actions/thoughts" are you talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Although I haven't been following this thread religiously, in my opinion you are either missing the point or misinterpreting said comments. We are not. Basic reading comprehension supports how we are interpreting them. If you have not followed the discussion, it is understandable that you would be uncertain of the context of the statements. Thankfully, we are cursed with the burden of knowing what were talking about.Yes, the specific issue was "resolved", but there is the larger problem of the fact that Ivan did this and that he thought it was a good idea. His motives are being put into question, and furthermore, people disapprove of the fact that he thinks it's okey to recruit from other alliances. Now, all of these things supersede the specific issue, which is why they are still being discussed. No they dont. Theyre just being overhyped, Ivan thinks its fair, but considering the fact that the issue is resolved by Ivan stating its fine to try and pull it with NSO, so long as its expected for the same to be dealt back...I would say that you fundamentally misunderstand the motivations behind these actions to begin with. The straw man which Citadel is attempting to misrepresent this set up as may supersede the specific issue, but they really have nothing to do with it to begin with. So its actually as relevant as Starfox's and Sponge's slapfight over Vox cred a few pages back. The reason Frostbite was mentioned, I can reasonably assume, is because you lot appear to support Ivan, and his unjust actions/thoughts. Wrong. Reasonably assuming something implies you have a basis to reason from. Logic is required in order to utilize reason. Logic is a style of thought based upon realities. That quoted portion is not logical due to the fact you clearly dont understand the context, and therefore you can not reasonably assume anything until youve read the entirety of the conversation. I say get cracking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 What "unjust actions/thoughts" are you talking about? Good question. Perhaps this is the dawn of the thought police entering the Cyberverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Well, that's your opinion on the matter and you are entitled to it. I believe you are wrong, and I think I don't need Hellangel to reiterate his irrelevant stance again for the sake of clarification. Well, if all you read in a sentence is the first five words, then I suppose your confusion shouldn't come as a shock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnews Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 HeinousOne, what you fail to realise is that the new top bloc needs an evil foe in order to promote itself as the bastion of all that is good in the Cyberverse. thats a big leap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 You mean we prevent defenseless alliances from getting bullied?Yeah what the hell were we thinking... Were you in the talks with TDO? No. Were you in the talks with GPA? No. Were you in the talks with GOP? No. Stop claiming to be the defender of the "defenseless" (which all three most certainly are not) when you didn't do a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 They may think it is silly that everyone is so up in arms about such but that is their right. All you have the right to push for is for them to not do the act, but you wish to police their thoughts as well. That is where you come off looking much more silly then them. See, it is you who is labelling others as world police - based on your own opinion. In reality, this accusation is meaningless. So, Ivan does something he thought was a good idea, people cry foul, he apologises as per the aggrieved parties' request and pledges not to do it again and you think there is still more to discuss about this matter? Ivan is entitled to his opinion whether you agree with it or not. That still sidesteps the bigger issue which I described just earlier. Really? Please post the quotes from myself stating my support for recruitment from other alliances. Grub said he didn't agree with it either but felt the reaction was over-the-top. You are welcome to assume, it does not make your assumptions correct. The fact that you post here in his defence shows that you support him, whether you like it or not. You may not agree with this viewpoint, but that is indeed how it looks. No they dont. Theyre just being overhyped See...that there is just your opinion. I believe those putting Ivan into question are correct for doing so. It doesn't take a master of politics to know that recruiting from other alliances is wrong. Ivan did something he knows would be perceived as very wrong by the larger community, and he still went ahead with it. This is what many people have a problem with, at least according to my impression. The straw man which Citadel is attempting to misrepresent this set up as may supersede the specific issue, but they really have nothing to do with it to begin with. So its actually as relevant as Starfox's and Sponge's slapfight over Vox cred a few pages back. Whether they have anything to do with the specific issue or not is irrelevant. Anyone has the right to put anyone's actions into question here. Reasonably assuming something implies you have a basis to reason from. Logic is required in order to utilize reason. Logic is a style of thought based upon realities. That quoted portion is not logical due to the fact you clearly dont understand the context, and therefore you can not reasonably assume anything until youve read the entirety of the conversation. And that assumes that you in fact do understand the context, and do so better than me. Yet through all that, you fail to understand why people have voiced their concern with what has transpired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) thats a big leap He tends to do that. We usually ignore it. Really, its like listening to a drunk person preach about a war which never existed, then attempting to snorkel dive in a puddle. Once someone says The Citadel needs an enemy, it becomes a laughing stock post, which a rebut by a post such as this comes into play. I will say however the biased opinions is absolutely amazing in this thread. We all know if it was 'the other side', those supporters would be wrecking them in a public. PLEASE argue it, PLEASE. I mean, 3 years of playing this game and NOTHING has changed, haha. Everyone needs to shutup and drink. Peace. sorry, july 4th + drinking = terrible grammar. Edited July 5, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 You mean we prevent defenseless alliances from getting bullied?Yeah what the hell were we thinking... This is the single most retarded thing I have read in the last few weeks. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 I'm disappointed, I wanted to see war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Those wishing to be the morals police can get off the stage now. All alliances we messaged handled the issue themselves or with some relatively soft-handed assistance of direct allies (i.e, UJA was around for the GOP discussions). These neutral alliances have proven that they are not themselves "defenseless" and they did not need any self-righteous parties to intercede on their behalf. Please wait a little longer before starting the revisionism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 You mean we prevent defenseless alliances from getting bullied?Yeah what the hell were we thinking... Don't you have some crusade against the evil NPO to be spewing "justice" about elsewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 This topic is great. First NSO blatantly insults neutrals, then they say "We're kind of sorry," then when a Citadel person comes along and says something not even close to as insulting as the original message they come in yelling about how Citadel is so insulting to neutrals. And people say Citadel is the one posturing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Don't you have some crusade against the evil NPO to be spewing "justice" about elsewhere? Don't you have neutrals to bully? See, everyone can be retarded and full of sarcasm too! Look where it gets us! No where. Good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 You mean we prevent defenseless alliances from getting bullied?Yeah what the hell were we thinking... You just insulted them worse than we did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 We insulted, but we did not bully. I would appreciate if we did not abuse vocabulary for political purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Don't you have neutrals to bully?See, everyone can be retarded and full of sarcasm too! Look where it gets us! No where. Good job. It's not sarcasm if it's true, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) We insulted, but we did not bully. I would appreciate if we did not abuse vocabulary for political purposes. Good point. "We". Tell your side, I tell mine, we hold hands. Till then, $%&@ the police, kind sir. It's not sarcasm if it's true, however. Which adds nothing and degrades the entire discussion. Instead of actively defending, you resort to actively aggressiveness by stating unrelated and irrelevant material. We all can do it, I am proud to say I contributed by responding to you. I laugh when those make jabs are completely shocked and awed when they receive the same responses. Edited July 5, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 See...that there is just your opinion. I believe those putting Ivan into question are correct for doing so. It doesn't take a master of politics to know that recruiting from other alliances is wrong. Ivan did something he knows would be perceived as very wrong by the larger community, and he still went ahead with it. This is what many people have a problem with, at least according to my impression. We Sith disagree with that commonly held belief. We have put up, and apologized for what was inappropriate of us to do. I believe the fact that we don't especially care what anyone else thinks outside of the involved parties kind of invalidates your entire post. And all of theirs.Your impression is flawed as well, because you have already indicated you dont know what you're talking about. Whether they have anything to do with the specific issue or not is irrelevant. Anyone has the right to put anyone's actions into question here. Wait. So you're saying [ooc]Derailing the thread[/ooc] is what occurred, and is perfectly acceptable? And that assumes that you in fact do understand the context, and do so better than me. Yet through all that, you fail to understand why people have voiced their concern with what has transpired. I do understand the context better than you. You dont understand the context at all, so thats not a very large leap to make. And I know perfectly well why these folks voiced their opinions, frankly, it wasnt because of a perceived moral obligation. Not that that matters, because they arent involved, and thus are irrelevant to the discussion itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Don't you have neutrals to bully?See, everyone can be retarded and full of sarcasm too! Look where it gets us! No where. Good job. Go drink another beer. I think it will make your arguments sound better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 We insulted, but we did not bully. I would appreciate if we did not abuse vocabulary for political purposes. Many would assume recruiting from relatively defenceless alliances to be bullying. I mean, why didn't you recruit from TOP? Why not from Sparta? Why did you choose to recruit from neutral alliances whom hold no treaties? That sir, is bullying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnews Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) Don't you have some crusade against the evil NPO to be spewing "justice" about elsewhere? edited look like ejayrazz got to it before i did Edited July 5, 2009 by agnews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 (edited) Go drink another beer. I think it will make your arguments sound better Is that all you had to say? God, I will need to drink much more after reading comments like this. Oh look, I am not adding anything constructive to these arguments. I am cool like EVERYONE on BOTH sides. $%&@ yeah. I think what we have here is a case of jumping the gun too quickly. Ivan made a mistake, he apologized. Get the $%&@ over it, because next time I apologize for a mistake I'd expect people to act like grown ups and just move on. Stop acting likes its the end of the world. And to those arguing them, stop bringing Citadel into it. Really, its annoying and moronic. Edited July 5, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 See, it is you who is labelling others as world police - based on your own opinion. In reality, this accusation is meaningless. So now you are not just policing the thoughts of others by telling them that their thinking that recruiting from alliances is wrong despite them saying they will no longer recruit from alliances that do not recruit from them but you are also telling me that my accusation of you doing exactly that is meaningless? Well let me say that I promise to bring every single opinion of mine to your doorstep first so you can tell me what is and what isn't meaningless. Deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 Many would assume recruiting from relatively defenceless alliances to be bullying. I mean, why didn't you recruit from TOP? Why not from Sparta? Why did you choose to recruit from neutral alliances whom hold no treaties?That sir, is bullying. I fail to see how any neutral alliance is defenseless. 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.