Brenann Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 ..no, I'm not. I'm saying my personal opinion, that if NPO tries to run people out of the (ooc)game(/ooc) again they shouldn't be allowed to exist. So if say I, in my personal opinion don't like you, you shouldn't be allowed to exist?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinite Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Lacks a song. I'll help you pay reps if you sing a song in the next issue. Edited August 1, 2009 by Trinite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 You guys really need to develop a sense of humour. Geez man, I thought you were on the NPO's side. That's harsh. Sir Paul gave it a valiant effort and I think he produced a decent work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 So if say I, in my personal opinion don't like you, you shouldn't be allowed to exist?? Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Hi, if any good sir can kindly shed a light on it, is NPO under any obligation to keep the total payment amounts breakdown hidden? Also, if I am not wrong, today the reps begin, anyhow, what are the reasons for Karma not disclosing them, obviously they are under no obligation to do so nor do they have anything to hide, hence bit of a confusion. Anyway, the humor was most funny (Grammerphail?), Regards, Just look at how the world has gone over all other rep numbers from the other theatres of war. Take that and quadruple it and that is the size of the headache for the Karma nations fighting NPO when it comes to discussion over the terms. So, I can see why they would want to keep it to themselves but NPO already showed that they are willing to take such things public like they did with the initial terms so it amuses me in massive amounts that those Karmic alliances think that this is going to remain under wraps. They just compound it by making it appear like they have something to hide. So when NPO releases it, it shall be like a tank full of piranha around here looking for the bits that those alliances wouldn't have wanted to be seen. Mr. HeinousOne, you make interesting points, again, nothing less is expected from an interesting man like yourself. Your addition of some worthy variables further confuse the equation and thus in a way, really raises the curious-factor of the questions such as if NPO is under any obligation to keep the breakdowns hidden and what are the reasons for hiding breakdowns if there is nothing to hide. You, Sir make some very valid points about how this may end up in drama in future despite it having absolutely no reason to become one. I suppose, we can only wait for the answers. With this, I bid farewell to this thread ~ Regards, Edited August 1, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Read. I did and it said, "if we do something you don't like, we shouldn't be allowed to exist." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 So if say I, in my personal opinion don't like you, you shouldn't be allowed to exist?? No, she's saying that if in your personal opinion you don't like her AND you try to stop her from existing, then you yourself shouldn't be allowed to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackalope Despot Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 ..no, I'm not. I'm saying my personal opinion, that if NPO tries to run people out of the (ooc)game(/ooc) again they shouldn't be allowed to exist. So if NPO tries to run people out of the (ooc) game (/ooc) again they should be ran out of the (ooc) game (/ooc) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) I did and it said, "if we do something you don't like, we shouldn't be allowed to exist." Nope, it didn't. It said that if someone forces (ooc)players(ooc) out of the (ooc)game(ooc) just to get a stronger standing, and then they are rolled, and have a chance to reflect, then go back to forcing (ooc)players(ooc) out of the (ooc)game(ooc), then I would prefer they aren't given peace again because they'll just go back to forcing (ooc)players(ooc) out of the (ooc)game(ooc), which (ooc)the game can't afford at this point with only 27k players(ooc). So if NPO tries to run people out of the (ooc) game (/ooc) again they should be ran out of the (ooc) game (/ooc) ? Yes. If that's what NPO does regularly, then for the sake of the (ooc)game(ooc) they need to be stopped, and the only way to do that is to either 1) let them change their ways on their own (already done), 2) beat them, hope to show them the errors of their way, and let them change their ways on their own (we're doing that now) or 3) either make them disband, keep them in eternal war, or take control over their government and make their decisions for them. If NPO goes back to pushing people out of (ooc)the game(ooc) after all this then they don't deserve to be allowed to surrender anymore. Or we can keep doing things your way and watch as the (ooc)game(ooc) dwindles even further. Edited August 1, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 No, she's saying that if in your personal opinion you don't like her AND you try to stop her from existing, then you yourself shouldn't be allowed to exist. Well, since in their personal opinion, there are some members of the alliances we fought that do not like us, and have undertaken a course of military action that has resulted in several Pacificans no longer existing, these people should, by this twisted logic, no longer be allowed to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Well, since in their personal opinion, there are some members of the alliances we fought that do not like us, and have undertaken a course of military action that has resulted in several Pacificans no longer existing, these people should, by this twisted logic, no longer be allowed to exist. No, you're changing what I said. Now listen real close and you may get it. If an alliance continues to make moves to drive people from the (ooc)game(ooc) their entire time in CN in order to secure their own place at the top, with no regard for the health of the (ooc)game(ooc), then they should be given a chance to change their ways. But if they continually prove that all they want to do is force others to (ooc)leave(ooc) out of frustration, thus badly hurting the (ooc)gameplay(ooc), perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to be in a position where they can force others to (ooc)leave the game(ooc). Now read that twice before replying, and don't take my words out of context, and debate me on my point, rather than trying to change what my point is and strawman my argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Yes. If that's what NPO does regularly, then for the sake of the (ooc)game(ooc) they need to be stopped, and the only way to do that is to either 1) let them change their ways on their own (already done), 2) beat them, hope to show them the errors of their way, and let them change their ways on their own (we're doing that now) or 3) either make them disband, keep them in eternal war, or take control over their government and make their decisions for them.If NPO goes back to pushing people out of (ooc)the game(ooc) after all this then they don't deserve to be allowed to surrender anymore. Or we can keep doing things your way and watch as the (ooc)game(ooc) dwindles even further. So again the NPO gets blamed for: 1)Killing Alliances 2)Installing Viceroys 3)Chasing people out of the game 4)Keeping alliance in eternal war and not giving them peace And you want to if we meet your certain criteria: 1)"either make them disband" 2)"take control over their government and make their decisions for them." 3) You stated several time we should be "chased out too" 4)"keep them in eternal war" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackalope Despot Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Yes. If that's what NPO does regularly, then for the sake of the (ooc)game(ooc) they need to be stopped, and the only way to do that is to either 1) let them change their ways on their own (already done), 2) beat them, hope to show them the errors of their way, and let them change their ways on their own (we're doing that now) or 3) either make them disband, keep them in eternal war, or take control over their government and make their decisions for them. /me looks up "double standard" in dictionary. /me sees link to this post. What if the people they drove away from the (ooc)game(/ooc) were also a negative influence on the (ooc)game(/ooc)? Bear in mind, I have no love for NPO. Rode 3 nations to zi against them, one of them a top 10% one. Joined Vox the day after it formed. All nine yards. That being said, I see no reason to drive them from the (ooc)game(/ooc). Wouldn't a crippled, vengeful NPO be more fun than none at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriegsdrachen Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 SPOILER ALERT! This and every Tabloid Tribune is comedy. It is not meant to be taken seriously, or to be seen as official policy or anything else more than a joke. Pity this needs to be explained. Moving on, another good issue Sir Paul. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 No, you're changing what I said. Now listen real close and you may get it. If an alliance continues to make moves to drive people from the (ooc)game(ooc) their entire time in CN in order to secure their own place at the top, with no regard for the health of the (ooc)game(ooc), then they should be given a chance to change their ways. But if they continually prove that all they want to do is force others to (ooc)leave(ooc) out of frustration, thus badly hurting the (ooc)gameplay(ooc), perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to be in a position where they can force others to (ooc)leave the game(ooc). Now read that twice before replying, and don't take my words out of context, and debate me on my point, rather than trying to change what my point is and strawman my argument. I am pointing out that you are using double standards. Every major war results in people (mostly on the losing side) leaving the realm. Every action that people "do not like" results in some of them not liking it enough to simply leave. And before you go on that "viable alternative" tangent again, that is nothing more than an attempt to rationalise your double standards. Of course there is an alternative - everyone has an alternative; which is why I stated that the whole idea of [ooc]forcing people out of the game[/ooc] is a farce in the first place. To claim that things are "viable", but only this time, is inaccurate - quite obviously if it were "viable", people would have picked it instead of leaving. Since they did not pick it, it quite obviously was not "viable" in the subjective opinion of those people. You think that I am taking your words out of context because you do not want to admit that very simple axiom. Everyone always has a choice - and since you cannot even begin compare the state of having to [ooc]play this game[/ooc] under the worst possible scenario with something that could actually be considered, in absolute terms, an impossible choice (i.e, being faced with death/serious injury etc), then everything in this game has a "viable alternative". And therefore, since people cannot be forced of the game, and always have a choice of staying; then either you treat every instance of people "choosing to leave" as a crime; whereby Karma (and pretty much every alliance in the game) would be "guilty" of [ooc]forcing people out of the game[/ooc] - and would, applying that logic, have to be "put down" the moment they tried that again (i.e, the moment any war of significant size was fought again) - or you have to admit that the logic of the argument you are propagating is horribly flawed when put up to serious examination, and has only survived as long as it did due to the popularity of the "big man keeping the little man out" image as a rallying cry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) So again the NPO gets blamed for:1)Killing Alliances 2)Installing Viceroys 3)Chasing people out of the game 4)Keeping alliance in eternal war and not giving them peace Yes, you're getting blamed, because you did these things. And yes, if Pacifica continues to do these things after being given another chance, then I support eternal war for NPO. Edit: true, nobody can be (ooc)forced from the game(ooc), but you can make it unpleasant and unfun to participate (ooc)in the game(ooc) by installing viceroys, demanding neverending reps, etc. etc. which leads to them... gasp... (ooc)quitting(ooc). Edited August 1, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I'm really hoping we're not going to discard our past-time of condemning the NPO for supposed past actions just to condemn them for supposed future actions. Progress! Forward! Onward! Harch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I'm really hoping we're not going to discard our past-time of condemning the NPO for supposed past actions just to condemn them for supposed future actions. Progress! Forward! Onward! Harch! Now why would anybody here want to give up their favorite pasttime? If TWiP was still around, then we'd have something else to do, although it'd still be lolNPO related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I dont see a sing-along report.This does not bode well I agree. We need more sing-along! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I really wish someone would create a CN Thesaurus. Some people need to figure out some secondary words to use in the replacement of other words. I officially now hate the two letters O and C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Yes, you're getting blamed, because you did these things.And yes, if Pacifica continues to do these things after being given another chance, then I support eternal war for NPO. Edit: true, nobody can be (ooc)forced from the game(ooc), but you can make it unpleasant and unfun to participate (ooc)in the game(ooc) by installing viceroys, demanding neverending reps, etc. etc. which leads to them... gasp... (ooc)quitting(ooc). So now you jumped from NPO making people leave to just making it unpleasant for other alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Yes, you're getting blamed, because you did these things. Where were you when Monos Archein supported NPO's deeds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Ok, so it's an "eye for an eye" revenge thing. Just wanted to clarify. Not that I have any issues with a good old fashioned revenge killing, but at least have the courage to call it for what it is. It's tiring to see some of the Karma types go on and on as if they're liberating the Cyberverse from Pacifican oppression. You could say that they did depending on your point of view, but they're simply replacing it with their own oppression. Take this for instance:Notice how this one threatens to run Pacifica off the face of the planet in one sentence while admonishing them for (supposedly) doing the same thing to others. And to think that NPO members are the ones accused of doublethink! There were really only a handful of people who wanted to "run NPO off the planet" as you say. I personally just wanted them to stop supporting people/alliances who had no damn good reason to be there other than to be friends with the NPO. And I am not exacting vengance on anyone. I firmly believe in treating others how you want to be treated and calling people out when they are being stupid. That being said, if you kick a guy in the nuts (peanuts, cashews, pistachios, whatever) 20 times, don't get surprised when that guy comes back and does it once. I hope to see, as a result of the war, people getting warred for valid reasons instead of the BS that I have seen in the past. It would be nice to see a long term "what goes around comes around" period set in for the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 (edited) Penkala, you realize your alliance is hardly blameless here? EDIT: Voodoo beat me to it. Edited August 2, 2009 by New Frontier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted August 2, 2009 Report Share Posted August 2, 2009 Penkala, you realize your alliance is hardly blameless here?EDIT: Voodoo beat me to it. My Sith friend here makes an EXCELLENT point. 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.