Sylar Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Better then the one he made after he lost GW1, but i feel like this will be only the beginning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Whose job is it to define correctness? Claiming it is yours is a sign of complete and total arrogance. If it's not our job then it certainly isn't your job either. Doing so would be a sign of complete and total arrogance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I got a new banner for your cause. D+: text isn't properly centered, font does not fit subject matter, punctuation makes it look like you're addressing NSO instead of describing them, and the whole transparent flag thing is very lame - almost like pasting a flag on a jet or a tank. Also no one asked. Whose job is it to define correctness? Claiming it is yours is a sign of complete and total arrogance. The whole point of all this is that it's no one's job. Including the peanut gallery here. That's you by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 For someone claiming to not represent the majority, you sure are making a lot of statements about what the majority thinks. You don't have to be a representative to get a good idea of most people's opinions in a discussion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 You don't have to be a representative to get a good idea of most people's opinions in a discussion...Actually you don't get a good idea of most peoples' opinions. You get a good idea of the loud people's opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Actually you don't get a good idea of most peoples' opinions. You get a good idea of the loud people's opinions. I do believe you are in denial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Whose job is it to define correctness? Claiming it is yours is a sign of complete and total arrogance. Considering how the IAA was reformed, you have serious balls criticizing us over this. I mean really...gutting TGR? Thats kiiiinda hypocritical, as thats more or less exactly what CIN got declared on by Polar over, innit? IAAs reformation actually fits closer to the definition of "poaching" as CB than what we Sith have done here. Thought it might be worth pointing out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Anyone still crying over this is welcome to send recruitment messages to NSO members. Those claiming to be "watching" me or the NSO are welcome to sign up. The view from the inside is much better than the one out here in the cheap seats. Those that can't let go of the past and keep bringing long dead issues of supposed impropriety should really get a clue. You don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I do believe you are in denial. I really don't think they are that close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 And i expect their allies to punch some sense into them. If they continue this path, FB is in for an "interesting" time. Is that a threat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 He apologized. They accepted. This should be over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Is that a threat? Nah, he is just hoping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Is that a threat? Thats a conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 This whole thing is so laughably ridiculous. Apologies aren't necessary unless the people who give them are telling the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Considering how the IAA was reformed, you have serious balls criticizing us over this. I mean really...gutting TGR? Thats kiiiinda hypocritical, as thats more or less exactly what CIN got declared on by Polar over, innit? IAAs reformation actually fits closer to the definition of "poaching" as CB than what we Sith have done here.Thought it might be worth pointing out. The reason TGR was gutted when IAA returned was because the members that left were all former members of IAA that followed Chim to TGR waiting for IAA to reform. Those members that left would have left whether Chim asked them to or not once he reformed IAA. I was a bit sore over their initial reasoning for leaving (that TGR wasnt entering the war) but I saw IAA's reformation and the mass exodus as inevitable. TGR played with fire basing its growth almost entirely on former IAA members, in the end we got burned. There was nothing TGR could have done to prevent it from happening apart from installing Chim as our emperor and changing the name to IAA, which would have been just silly. So really the IAA was no more an example of poaching than Ivan forming the NSO AA and having people from across the cyberverse flock to it. (So neither example is poaching, just to be clear ) Its also silly that this came up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 So, out of this whole sordid affair the GPA has conducted themselves honorably and admirably. They didn't abandon the conventions of diplomacy and jump to make this issue a public spectacle or something larger than was warranted. For that I thank them.I would also like to offer them an apology for the wording of the message that went out to their membership. While I do not agree with the concept of neutrality and believe it is a tool of the great lie, it was unnecessary to convey that disagreement with direct insults towards their alliance, specifically the last line of the message itself. While the New Sith Order will never fully conform to the wills and wishes of the status quo we recognize the need to occasionally temper our zeal with the current realities of the Cyberverse and we recognize that while we may disagree with the philosophies of other alliances we can at least recognize their right to exist alongside us. For my part, so long as I am Dark Lord of the Sith, the New Sith Order will not, until the conventions of the past are cast away abroad, seek to recruit from other sovereign alliances unless those alliances seek to recruit from us first. Again, to the nations of the Green Protection Agency, I apologize if the wording of our message caused damage to your morale or insulted you in any way. My bad. This post, I approve of. Not that that matters or anything. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Whose job is it to define correctness? I'm not really sure, but I'm willing to submit my c.v. to whoever's doing the hiring and go through the interview process. I can already imagine the interview: Interviewer: Could you please define correctness?kingzog: In the context that you mean, where it's not a matter of 'two plus two equals four' but rather of value judgments, defining correctness or 'right and wrong' is extremely difficult. Interviewer: So you do not believe that some actions are inherently wrong? kingzog: I didn't say that. In this context, anything that causes a nation or an alliance real harm is certainly wrong. And by real harm I mean something that can be calculated. Interviewer: You're referring to things like military attacks, trade sanctions and so on, I assume. Those are the ones you define as causing real harm? kingzog: Words like 'real' are subject to misunderstanding. Let me say 'calculable' harm instead. But yes, you're correct. Interviewer: What about the grey area? kingzog: That's where individual perception comes into play. As individuals, each of us approaches every situation with a unique set of experiences and prejudices. But as alliance members, we are inclined to demonize those we consider to be our opponents, regardless of whether or not they're making a good point. Interviewer: Are you saying there is no way to define correctness? kingzog: I'm afraid so. The best we can do is reach some kind of consensus on 'big' issues and agree to disagree on the rest. If we don't reach a consensus, it's best to just move on. Interviewer: That sounds awfully vague. Do you think you can provide me with an example of a non-military/trade action that is inherently wrong? kingzog: I believe so. Interviewer: Please elucidate. I'm very interested. kingzog: Well, as you know I lead an alliance -- Nordreich -- with a very controversial history. Many people love it. Many people loathe it. But since our Reformation at the beginning of May, we have done a lot of things that are really outside what many, friend or foe, would consider to be our 'norm'. Interviewer: Let me guess. All of this makes Nordreich 'good'? kingzog: No, I didn't say that. Let me finish, please. Interviewer: Alright. kingzog: In the last couple of days I have announced a new Charter, elections, a new government and our admission into one of the largest blocs in the Cyberverse. Interviewer: And that's good? kingzog: I didn't say that, either. Let me finish. My alliance's announcements -- statements that represent a huge shift in the way this alliance has done business -- have been largely ignored because of things like ridiculous 'recruiting drama' and a Declaration of Existence/Declaration of non-Existence by an alliance called 'BUNs'. BUNs, fer chrissakes! Interviewer: And that's wrong? kingzog: Yup. Absolutely. Interviewer: Don't you think that's a bit, well, to use your words....'subjective'? kingzog: Nope. Interviewer: How can you say that? kingzog: With my lips, dumbass. So, do I get the job or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Thats a conclusion. Well, thank you Mr. Citadel for making such a conclusion for us. It is much appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 This whole thing is so laughably ridiculous. Apologies aren't necessary unless the people who give them are telling the truth. What was untrue in Ivan's apology? Or was the word you were fumbling for 'insincere'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) Yeah. We are really bullying around someone when they are many times our size. I think the neutral alliances would find your comments quite offensive. Speaking for myself, indeed. I am very insulted. We are neutral, not passivist. So basically, this is what you did Ivan. "Hey dudes, sorry for the use of a lot of bad words when I decided that I'm gonna let my boys do whatever the heck they wanted. I don't care what they did, but sorry for the bad words being used." I wouldn't consider that an apology GPA. I do not Mercy, and I see it the same way you do. But I'm the radical of the bunch. Edited July 4, 2009 by KahlanRahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Speaking for myself, indeed.I do not Mercy, and I see it the same way you do. But I'm the radical of the bunch. Good job in undermining your alliance's official stand Lady Radical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) Good job in undermining your alliance's official stand Lady Radical. She has an opinion and she stated it. I'm sure there are quite a few GPAer's who feel the way she does. Edit: I am SO sorry Kahl *headdesks* Edited July 4, 2009 by James Wilson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Good job in undermining your alliance's official stand Lady Radical. Actually, I think he was agreeing with me. The NSO weren't bullying the GPA because they were much bigger than we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 ChairmanHal predicts the future far more accurately than you do. Pardon me if I don't return the left handed compliment. To the group at large reading this thread... Ivan said exactly what he needed to say to GPA. His disagreement with their philosophy of neutrality is well known. I share his disagreement with it. Neutrality is not freedom from global politics and concentration on nation building. It never was. The only sure way to ensure that you will never be attacked is to live in Peace Mode. Did he mean his apology? Ask yourself this question first: do you honestly want to spend all weekend analyzing it? Surely you people have *something* else to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) He has an opinion and he stated it. I'm sure there are quite a few GPAer's who feel the way he does. I would think the time for a high ranking government official to state their opinion is when the alliance is forming its official opinion. Not afterwards when that opinion was not agreed with just as She stated as she stated it was radical. Actually, I think he was agreeing with me. The NSO weren't bullying the GPA because they were much bigger than we are. You need to reread, especially now that the part pertaining to you was edited. Edited July 4, 2009 by HeinousOne 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.