Augustus Autumn Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 What I don't understand, is why everyone is labeling an entire sphere immoral lately? Because it's pink. Pink is always immoral. Obviously. Seriously though, it's an exercise in absurdism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 What I don't understand, is why everyone is labeling an entire sphere immoral lately? It's humor. Learn it. Breath it. Live it. Seriously though, it's an exercise in absurdism. What does a (in my opinion) absurd philosophy one step away from existentialism and nihilism have anything to do with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Putting "Pink/IS is immoral, sig if you're down" is just like putting "NPO stands for New Pacific Order, sig if you're down". There's no point to be made. sigged Perhaps I worded the poll wrong, but its too late to change a handful of votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 What does a (in my opinion) absurd philosophy one step away from existentialism and nihilism have anything to do with this? The "pink is immoral" thing is essentially meaningless. People getting bent over it adds the laughs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) NPO stands for New Pink Order, sig if your down It's the only logical conclusion. NPO=immoral Pink=immoral therefore, NPO=Pink Transitive Property ftw! The "pink is immoral" thing is essentially meaningless. People getting bent over it adds the laughs. icwutudidthar Edited August 21, 2009 by Tolkien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneLOL Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Obviously I'm going to support my alliance because indeed I am a member of this alliance. I'm going to have to go with this answer Edited August 21, 2009 by HurricaneLOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Obviously I voted for IS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 This was a pretty easy choice. CG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 You know, it was a hard decision until I looked at my sig, and then the decision became clear to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudekker Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Because it's pink. Pink is always immoral. Obviously.Seriously though, it's an exercise in absurdism. It's teh interwebz. Absurdity is OK sometimes. Especially if it's sigs. But if this sort of raiding/warring happens to CG (who I had become friendly with during Baseballergate), it's going to happen to someone else in the future. I can't sit back while people do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I don't like anyone in CG, though two of those people have already left, on the other hand I feel a small amount of support for IS, purely because to me, it seems like people are mindlessly supporting the underdog or just have some problem with IS. This was basically a tech raid like any other, and all of a sudden there is this incredible moral outrage people feel about it? It seems to me at least, that since Karma arose, along with vocal supporters painting the hegemony as pure evil bringing everyone together to fight evil, everyone is just trying to paint each other as the next big evil entity on planet bob, and everyone wants to throw themselves out there as moral crusaders for good, or maybe justice. And no, I have no idea why i was putting that in italics. I think you're on to something here, but for one thing, that's nothing new. People have always painted themselves as honorable defenders of justice/peace/order/freedom/etc, and painted their foes as evil aggressors. Sometimes sincerely, sometimes not. That said, I'm not sure that's the main reason people support CG. For one thing, CMs and bombers on a raid, especially against a 15-man alliance, is gonna get you some flak no matter who you are. For another, IS have a history of going out of their way to be jackasses. Some people pull a jackass move every once in a while, others try to do it as much as possible. I think a lot of people wouldn't care quite as much if someone without such a history were to do this. But people view this as par for the course for IS. It's not a case of someone pulling one jackass move, it's just one in a long series for IS. So yes, I do think that people are more outraged because it's IS... But with good reason. They've shown that this sort of thing is how they roll, not just an anomaly. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord GVChamp Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I think Hellscream is the man, so my hat goes to supporting CG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackSkellington Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 My sig reflects my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gondor Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Pink is immoral. End of Story. Nah, I'm just not a fan of a lot of their alliances. I'm more against IS than pink sphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nc1701 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 It's up to the raider, or the raider's alliance if they have one, to determine the etiquette required.I for one very nearly bought the MP this month purely to raid people in my NS range and nuke them whilst I was at it. I don't care that nuking them eradicates tech that I can steal. Raiding is by it's very nature an attack meant to steal items, an attack meant to destroy the targets nation is not a raid, it is a war. War itself is fine, but should always come with a declaration of purpose or intent. [OOC]When you bust open a bank and take the money you are a thief, set a series of car bombs which kill hundreds of people and then rob the bank during the commotion you are a terrorist.[OOC] Quite simply you are a !@#$%, and if you want to just destroy stuff admit it and don't hide behind terms like raiding, because that sure isn't what IS is doing, nor what your are/were planning to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Raiding is by it's very nature an attack meant to steal items, an attack meant to destroy the targets nation is not a raid, it is a war. War itself is fine, but should always come with a declaration of purpose or intent.[OOC]When you bust open a bank and take the money you are a thief, set a series of car bombs which kill hundreds of people and then rob the bank during the commotion you are a terrorist.[OOC] Quite simply you are a !@#$%, and if you want to just destroy stuff admit it and don't hide behind terms like raiding, because that sure isn't what IS is doing, nor what your are/were planning to do. Heh, I've always been a big fan of this view: do whatever you want, but don't try to kid yourself or anyone else about what you're doing. Wanna go into a nation, tanks rolling and guns blazing, stealing their tech, land, and money? Fine, good for you, blah blah blah. It's your life, it's a free world, all that stuff. But trying to dress it up as anything less than a violent act of war is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 BURN IS AT THE STAKE! IMMORALITY SHALL NOT GO UNPUNISHED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 This was basically a tech raid like any other, and all of a sudden there is this incredible moral outrage people feel about it? So basic tech raids have to be accepted by those being raided because they are basic raids? So if everyone decides to tech raid you and your alliance you will just accept the "Tech Raid Peace Sent"???? Or will you put up a fight? By that logic, the sanctioned alliances can tech raid each other and they have to accept the "Tech Raid Peace Sent"???? Or will they put up a fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 So basic tech raids have to be accepted by those being raided because they are basic raids?So if everyone decides to tech raid you and your alliance you will just accept the "Tech Raid Peace Sent"???? Or will you put up a fight? By that logic, the sanctioned alliances can tech raid each other and they have to accept the "Tech Raid Peace Sent"???? Or will they put up a fight? If you tech raid someone, you should expect them to fight back, but not bawwwwwww about it. And no, most alliances have rules on tech raiding to prevent getting rolled. CG fits into IS's, it just happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 If you tech raid someone, you should expect them to fight back, but not bawwwwwww about it. And no, most alliances have rules on tech raiding to prevent getting rolled. CG fits into IS's, it just happens. Except that they used more than GA's, thus nullifying the term "tech raid". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iosif Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 To be honest, I couldn't care less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 My foreign affairs encounter with IS was...less than pleasant. So CG in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Except that they used more than GA's, thus nullifying the term "tech raid". I don't use CMs and air attacks in raids, unless I need to improve the odds a little. It's still a raid either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 I don't use CMs and air attacks in raids, unless I need to improve the odds a little. It's still a raid either way. CM's and air raids are one thing, I can understand that. Spying away nukes and naval attacks though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 CM's and air raids are one thing, I can understand that. Spying away nukes and naval attacks though? Just because your primary goal is raiding doesn't mean you can't be a little sadistic. B) 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.