extraduty Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Do you have anything to base this on or are you just talking out of your $@!? Do you have anything to base your statement on? Of course Vox was outspoken about NPO and made life at least somewhat difficult on them. But at its peak they had maybe 250 members (most of which where there cause it was the "cool" thing to do) only maybe 100 were true to the cause (if that many). There are far more than that outspoken against the ills of NPO now that they are soundly defeated. disclamer: If my numbers for Vox numbers are far off base, I welcome any former Vox member that was in the know to correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Do you have anything to base your statement on? Of course Vox was outspoken about NPO and made life at least somewhat difficult on them. But at its peak they had maybe 250 members (most of which where there cause it was the "cool" thing to do) only maybe 100 were true to the cause (if that many). There are far more than that outspoken against the ills of NPO now that they are soundly defeated.disclamer: If my numbers for Vox numbers are far off base, I welcome any former Vox member that was in the know to correct me. It is only common sense strategy that if you oppose the oppressive leadership, and if making the opposition would only serve to get you killed, then your goal is to bide your time. Put yourself in a position to put an end to it. Do not mistake the lack of vocal opposition towards Pacificas policies as a weakness in those opposed. Waiting for the right time is simply the best option. You even notice the funny thing about martyrs? They are dead. So many people act as though everyone who opposed Pacifica should have stood up 1 by 1 and said "Hey, my goal is to kill Pacifica." That would have ended well. Edited August 1, 2009 by Rush Sykes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 No, don't do it. Leave him to me. I will see his puny nation reduced to ashes under the weight of mein sturmtruppen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Lol at this thread. Why whould you nuke someone for no reason? The guy just started a new alliance, and he gets attacked right away. Thats low. Yea Kobi hopped around alot, but hes a nice guy after you get to know him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 No, don't do it. Leave him to me. I will see his puny nation reduced to ashes under the weight of mein sturmtruppen. Best of luck to your future endeavors, lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Best of luck to your future endeavors, lol... Is that really your wish? Answer carefully. Your nation is at stake. Edited August 1, 2009 by Tom Litler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Is that really your wish?Answer carefully. Your nation is at stake. Yes you may do as you please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 So, now that NPO is on peace terms it's ok to do what they "supposedly" got rolled for? Ohh cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 So, now that NPO is on peace terms it's ok to do what they "supposedly" got rolled for?Ohh cool. To be fair, not necessarily everyone participated in the crucifixion of the New Pacific Order... likewise, people only followed the teachings of Christ after murdering him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Not everyone, but all of Karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Not everyone, but all of Karma. Karma never held a moral high ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakura Posted August 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 There's (IMO) a difference between someone deciding to raid someone, and realizing that they aren't particularly liked, and offering to nuke that person for tech -- and NPO. Among the reasons mentioned on IRC include him applying to another alliance, and then *TWO* days later, creating his 'new' alliance. I am interested in what NSO has to say on the subject -- seeing as Kobiashiy did copy/heavily emulate their theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 The real question is what will GDA do? If they don't stand up for Kobiashiy then I'll lose any respect for them. Are you going to hold up your end of the bargain, GDA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 When did I say they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 There's (IMO) a difference between someone deciding to raid someone, and realizing that they aren't particularly liked, and offering to nuke that person for tech -- and NPO. Among the reasons mentioned on IRC include him applying to another alliance, and then *TWO* days later, creating his 'new' alliance. I am interested in what NSO has to say on the subject -- seeing as Kobiashiy did copy/heavily emulate their theme. I have talked to a lot of NSO government.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) lol. this is funny sakura. when i said yeah you should make a poll i didnt think u were actually gonna do it. haha. we already know what my answer is. I didnt read the whole thread, but im sure GDA has been brought up already cuz its 5 pages already. Sakura attacked before GDA "kind of officially" said they were gonna protect Kobis alliance. So GDA cant say anything since Kobi was unprotected at the time the war was declared\ The real question is what will GDA do? If they don't stand up for Kobiashiy then I'll lose any respect for them. Are you going to hold up your end of the bargain, GDA? there was no "their end of the bargain" at the time the war was decalred. just a "we are still figuring out if we wanna protect them and will let you know if/when we sign anything" Edited August 1, 2009 by Newhotness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 There's (IMO) a difference between someone deciding to raid someone, and realizing that they aren't particularly liked, and offering to nuke that person for tech -- and NPO. Among the reasons mentioned on IRC include him applying to another alliance, and then *TWO* days later, creating his 'new' alliance. I am interested in what NSO has to say on the subject -- seeing as Kobiashiy did copy/heavily emulate their theme. WHAT A HEINOUS CRIME! Making his own alliance after applying to another alloiance! THE HORROR! Did he not think of the children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 lol. this is funny sakura. when i said yeah you should make a poll i didnt think u were actually gonna do it. haha. we already know what my answer is. I didnt read the whole thread, but im sure GDA has been brought up already cuz its 5 pages already. Sakura attacked before GDA "kind of officially" said they were gonna protect Kobis alliance. So GDA cant say anything since Kobi was unprotected at the time the war was declared\ there was no "their end of the bargain" at the time the war was decalred. just a "we are still figuring out if we wanna protect them and will let you know if/when we sign anything" Actually they posted saying they would protect us, and she attacked after.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron Paul Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Actually they posted saying they would protect us, and she attacked after.. If you could provide us with evidence both of an announced treaty and the time of war declaration that would be fantastic. Until then, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 If you could provide us with evidence both of an announced treaty and the time of war declaration that would be fantastic.Until then, Contrary to popular belief, a treaty does not need announced to be real. The announcement only serve as a hailfest and photo op for the protector and protectee. They publicly announced in the 1st post of the DoE thread for his new alliance, that they protected him, and were only waiting to finalize signatures. But you go ahead, keep trying to make the fail case that he was unprotected at the time of the attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Hmm, interesting. Unless I was told incorrectly, Internet Superheroes is a signatory of The Bus Doctrine, which states: Section 1- The Use of MilitaryStipulation i - In particular, the signatories of PWN will be looking at instances of excessive force and extortion during tech raids against pink nations. In this situation, the signatories reserve the right to militaristic response. This seems to be excessive force, so I'm a little thrown off by the fact that a government member would be doing this. EDIT: Yes I realize that that is only about protecting IS, but this seems like it's like "Do as we say, not as we do." Edited August 1, 2009 by Poobah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 If you could provide us with evidence both of an announced treaty and the time of war declaration that would be fantastic.Until then, Post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=64936 Raid: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.as...&Extended=1 Happy there is your evidence.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron Paul Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=64936Raid: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.as...&Extended=1 Happy there is your evidence.. Lack of an announced treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron Paul Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Contrary to popular belief, a treaty does not need announced to be real. The announcement only serve as a hailfest and photo op for the protector and protectee. They publicly announced in the 1st post of the DoE thread for his new alliance, that they protected him, and were only waiting to finalize signatures. But you go ahead, keep trying to make the fail case that he was unprotected at the time of the attack. He was unprotected, as the treaty was not announced. I've been raided under similar circumstance trying to form alliances before, raiders do not accept "THEY'LL ANNOUNCE IT TOMORROW" as an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobiashiy Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 He was unprotected, as the treaty was not announced. I've been raided under similar circumstance trying to form alliances before, raiders do not accept "THEY'LL ANNOUNCE IT TOMORROW" as an answer. Doesn't matter it says I am protected and that is all that matters, it says it will be posted in coming days but it says I'm protected and I am protected as GDA has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts