SpoiL Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 ok, find us a villain then? BE the 'villain'. Evil is a matter of perspective. Bring back the fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nananana Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 BE the 'villain'. Evil is a matter of perspective. Bring back the fun. Batman can never be the villain true story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Ludendorff Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the system is the international system and that you should take a stake in it is self evident- it stems from your existence, after all. Does that clarify enough for you? So which steps should I take to claim my stake? I'll send out some snide recruitment messages, then meekly apologize when SHTF. Will we then be influential in the system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Batman can never be the villaintrue story Depends on your perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 So which steps should I take to claim my stake? I'll send out some snide recruitment messages, then meekly apologize when SHTF. Will we then be influential in the system? You could always try and find out. My hunch is that you would be labeled a cheap imitator, but you never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 So which steps should I take to claim my stake? I You'll have a stake when you rewrite your charter so that it isn't designed to intentionally slow your growth and prevent you from becoming a relevant power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 You'll have a stake when you rewrite your charter so that it isn't designed to intentionally slow your growth and prevent you from becoming a relevant power. haha, this. Couldnt put it better myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) Democracy is a Great Lie. Civilization is a Turkey Sandwich. No really, what are you talking about? Edited July 24, 2009 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Ludendorff Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 You'll have a stake when you rewrite your charter so that it isn't designed to intentionally slow your growth and prevent you from becoming a relevant power. We must be somewhat relevant to garner so much attention from you. I haven't seen any outside parties writing any threads about NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Sphere unity treaties came into vogue, everyone needed one, and now the globe is saddled with treaties like NOIR, where the many signatories almost certainly won't come out as unified. I am a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that Noir is not a unified bloc? Besides that, great read, now lets hope people actually realize what you are saying is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 We must be somewhat relevant to garner so much attention from you. I haven't seen any outside parties writing any threads about NSO. No, they just tend to flock to ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 You'll have a stake when you rewrite your charter so that it isn't designed to intentionally slow your growth and prevent you from becoming a relevant power. But then it wouldn't be the glorified retirement home that Doitzel intended it to be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Civilization is a Turkey Sandwich.No really, what are you talking about? Democracy is a Great Lie. Democracy promises freedom but brings dictatorship of the majority. It proffers votes for all but special interests count them. It provides short term prosperity in exchange for long term ruin. It begins in purity and ends absolutely corrupt. Democracy is a Great Lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 But then it wouldn't be the glorified retirement home that Doitzel intended it to be! Better than a failed personality cult state filled with trolls and wannabe hegemonists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 We must be somewhat relevant to garner so much attention from you. I haven't seen any outside parties writing any threads about NSO. The Democratic Order wrote one about us. We also get brought up in other alliances threads don't have anything to do with us. We're kinda a big deal....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Ludendorff Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 No, they just tend to flock to ours. Just to point out the hypocrisy and irony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Democracy is a Great Lie. Democracy promises freedom but brings dictatorship of the majority. It proffers votes for all but special interests count them. It provides short term prosperity in exchange for long term ruin. It begins in purity and ends absolutely corrupt.Democracy is a Great Lie. So you're just making random statements that have no relevance whatsoever to the topic? You are the first person to mention democracy in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nananana Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Depends on your perspective. What a preposterous notion. Even on such a flawed and magical assumption, if I were to be the villain, who would the the good guy be: a midget with metacarpal deformities, a crazy old cat lady with a latex fetish, or one of many emo, make-up wearing jokers? I thought that the sith would be down with my crusade seeing as how I embrace sith ideals far more than I embrace the ideals of a failed jedi community. it all begins with the simple realization.... there is no peace. And from that, I let my passion for hurting (other) costumed aggressors do the rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coursca Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Our membership discussions on a departure from the Continuum began considerably before the war began, and they certainly began well before the catalyst situation---OV and NPO/TPF---that brought the war about. Also worth note is that 72 hours notice were required before departure; that we exited the Continuum in close proximity to the start of the war is nothing but coincidence. Though it pains me to say it, there is no way that we could have discussed the matter and made the decision to leave the bloc fast enough to do so purely in reaction to the threat of upcoming war; in this event, our note of intent to withdraw from the bloc occurred only 24 hours after said situation arose---in TOP, it takes, at the very least, several days for our membership discussions to reasonably conclude and for our voting body to then vote a decision through. So no---we certainly did not leave the Continuum in response to the threat that our treaty obligations would be triggered. We left because we felt the bloc was no longer our place. I believe many involved in Q at that time would agree that that the bloc had begun to disintegrate well before the war began. I'd also like to note the double standard inherent in the accusations in question---namely (though rightfully), nobody accuses MHA of the same. I'd like to make a couple of other notes: The terms "supremacy" and "power-projection" do not fit with the Citadel. None of the alliances in the bloc have any marked history of power-plays or aggressiveness in any sense, and the character of the alliances involved will not change, period---and it certainly won't be altered by whatever newfound position we may have in the relative alliance ranks in the game. Beyond that, from my own extensive experience in the government circles of that bloc, I find it amusing that others think the Citadel capable of domination in any sense. While we will certainly readily defend each other with all means at our respective disposals, we have rarely all agreed with each other on anything. It is remarkable when we can get even a minor project off the ground, i.e. the Citadel Trading Company; that enterprise, whilst not very significant---and one of the only things the Citadel has ever done as a bloc---only got off the ground after a raging and bitter debate that lasted months. To sum up, many outside ideas of the character, internal makeup and internal functions of the Citadel are completely, hilariously wrong. Anyone who has been involved in the bloc on the government level will attest to the fact that intra-bloc functions most often resemble a barfight, albeit a barfight between friends and with no animosity held. While TOP does have many large nations, we are community-based and we have based our admissions system on such. I know because I designed the admissions system in question. Admissions are done entirely on the basis of applicants` personal character on how well we feel they will fit into the community. Vouches are absolutely required, as there is otherwise little in the way of methods by which we can judge an applicant's person and fittingness for our community (all applicants are also discussed by the community at large before Council votes on the applicants). Also required for admission is a commitment to activity within the alliance. All applicants are dNation strength is absolutely irrelevant in our admissions system. A big nation led by a ruler with a poor attitude will not get in. Such a person would disrupt the community. The stability of our community is our primary priority. It is what makes TOP a fun place to be in. An alliance full of big nations but constantly immersed in turmoil and drama is not fun to be in. Believe what you wish. This is how it is. If anyone has any further questions on TOP's methods, TOP's internal makeup, TOP's goals and aspirations or anything else about TOP in general, please feel free to approach us and ask, and we will be happy to answer. It will serve infinitely better than simply making assumptions. Thanks for reading. I'd like to quote and reiterate the spirit in which this post was made. TOP's goal is not world domination through statistical excellence. TOP's goal was, is, and always will be to create a very tight-knit community of active and intelligent individuals who both enjoy the game and actively contribute to the community. The large nations are but a byproduct of this community. Accusing us of seeking to grow out of the need to care is based on misinformation about what TOP is really, at its core, about. Our goals and aspirations are quite simple: to help our friends and allies when they need it and to have an active and fun community in which people can get the most out of their experience. This is what Paradoxia is about and what we will always be about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinan Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Better than a failed personality cult state filled with trolls and wannabe hegemonists. Failed? Sir, we've accomplished everything we've set out to do so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the system is the international system and that you should take a stake in it is self evident- it stems from your existence, after all. Does that clarify enough for you? It clarifies what you mean by system, not why I should have a stake in it. I certainly should not have had a stake in the previous international system, which I wanted to see destroyed. And if I am to accept your assessment of the current state of affairs in the OP, I shouldn't have a stake in the current international system either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Failed? Sir, we've accomplished everything we've set out to do so far. I don't see much achievement other than a couple of essays trashing other alliances for not embracing their inner "Sith", but if that was your goal, then you've certainly done a fine job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted July 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) I'd like to quote and reiterate the spirit in which this post was made.TOP's goal is not world domination through statistical excellence. TOP's goal was, is, and always will be to create a very tight-knit community of active and intelligent individuals who both enjoy the game and actively contribute to the community. The large nations are but a byproduct of this community. Accusing us of seeking to grow out of the need to care is based on misinformation about what TOP is really, at its core, about. Our goals and aspirations are quite simple: to help our friends and allies when they need it and to have an active and fun community in which people can get the most out of their experience. This is what Paradoxia is about and what we will always be about. As I said from the beginning: this sort of attitude was born as a response to conditions in which that was the most you could hope to achieve. Conditions have changed and one needn't feed off of these justifications for mediocrity any more- one can now reach out and strive for more than that. It clarifies what you mean by system, not why I should have a stake in it. I certainly should not have had a stake in the previous international system, which I wanted to see destroyed. And if I am to accept your assessment of the current state of affairs in the OP, I shouldn't have a stake in the current international system either. You fought the old system so that people could have a system in which they could take a stake in it. If you took a stake in the system, you could've contributed to the fight against stagnancy and could've been a vital source of competition that could've been a strong driver for progress. You could've been a contender. But instead you formed a retirement home. Edited July 24, 2009 by heggo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Ludendorff Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) I don't see much achievement other than a couple of essays trashing other alliances for not embracing their inner "Sith", but if that was your goal, then you've certainly done a fine job. You're forgetting that they have also given white peace to an alliance(even though peace is a lie) and have recruited aligned nations(but only from neutral alliances, and quickly apologized) and have denounced alliances for worrying too much about stats(even though they seem very proud of their own). Edited July 24, 2009 by Erich Ludendorff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 You fought the old system so that people could have a system in which they could take a stake in it. That's not why I fought it. 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.