Hell Scream Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I don't see how you could appoint a banned player to any position in an alliance. But any nation could have avoided any material harm (from war or from peace terms) by moving alliance, correct? (Once individual surrender terms are presented, which has been the case for almost the entirety of the Karma war, or as long as peace terms don't forbid it, which I don't believe yours do.) As long as there is a way out (as there wasn't for FAN or Vox nations) then there is no reason for any nation to be disbanded for purely material reasons. Are you promoting cowardice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'm more pointing out that only counting material harm to nations really doesn't paint the whole picture. But if the options are saving your pixels or being so saddened by their loss that you can't go on as leader of your nation, yes, that person should surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Bob, why exactly are you using the "they have a choice" argument as an answer to the "everyone has a choice" position? It's like you are agreeing with me but pretending not to - it makes no sense. Then again, seeing as you keep on quoting a single line and not addressing everything else in the post, maybe you haven't really seen what our position in this discussion is and we are talking about two different things here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 So when people got all defensive in response to TWiP it was okay, but when the same happens with Sir Paul's writing it's in poor fashion? While I enjoyed TWiP alot, the basis of it was about taking information from the private NPO forum. I really do not see how it is similiar to this tabloid in that regard that you speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 While I enjoyed TWiP alot, the basis of it was about taking information from the private NPO forum. I really do not see how it is similiar to this tabloid in that regard that you speak of. It may have been based off of leaks from the NPO forum but it was still fundamentally anti-NPO propaganda with a humorous angle to it. Sir Paul's work is an anti-Karma propaganda piece with humor as well. I'm not sure how you can't see the similarity between the two. The only real difference is that no super seekrit information is being leaked in this tabloid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 It may have been based off of leaks from the NPO forum but it was still fundamentally anti-NPO propaganda with a humorous angle to it. Sir Paul's work is an anti-Karma propaganda piece with humor as well. I'm not sure how you can't see the similarity between the two. The only real difference is that no super seekrit information is being leaked in this tabloid. I agree that there are those similarities that you speak of but where we differ is on how big that difference you speak of really is. You think its a small thing and I think it is something that really makes it hard for the side being focused on to find any humor at all in the propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Everyone only really has a choice if you give them one, as Karma did (but as NPO has not for extended periods with some of its opponents), through surrender terms. If the choice is 'be crushed or disband (OOC: delete)', then it's not much of a choice. Edit: the reason though is that I missed that you were talking about individual nations in my first reply to you, and the second was explaining that. Edited August 3, 2009 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Honestly, if Frawley really intends to wait 2 to 3 years to collect his assets then I'm disappointed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted August 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Honestly, if Frawley really intends to wait 2 to 3 years to collect his assets then I'm disappointed Well, we could probably collect sooner if our C&G application is accepted (we did go through the hazing process during pledge week). 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.