Francesca Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 I can't tell. But there are generally accepted definitions besides that one. Regardless, whether or not I am a traitor (which I am not) does not influence whether or not it is classy to make a thread like this, which is the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Regardless, whether or not I am a traitor (which I am not) does not influence whether or not it is classy to make a thread like this, which is the topic.It is generally accepted, and already properly established, that creating this thread was not classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Traitors harbour ill-will to their alliances. False. Treason is an act, not a mindset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 False. Treason is an act, not a mindset Technically... she's got a point. Treason is a crime, and as such it requires some deliberation, or what in Anglo-American criminal law is called mens rea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Technically... she's got a point. Treason is a crime, and as such it requires some deliberation, or what in Anglo-American criminal law is called mens rea. sure, but whether or not an act is deliberate has nothing to do with state of mind... there's a long list of "traitors" out there who were under the impression that their actions would improve their nation/city/state/kingdom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 Consider the huge losses I took for Viridia, and then compare them with the token aid I gave Litha. I was no traitor to Viridia. When an alliance is at war, or hostilities are present, and you aid that alliance, you are potentially committing an act of war. Simply put, if you aid an alliance at war you put your home alliance at risk. Any sane alliance would remove you for endangering them. Especially when you endanger your entire alliance for an act you admit is token. This is CN Diplomacy 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) So I suppose this means we can stop caring about the time VE disbanded then, since you obviously think its funny.And to think you guys once had class. You do know what alliance you are party to right? The one alliance responsible for more disbandments than all the rest merged together. You are an ironic little fellow. Edited August 31, 2009 by Galapagos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 This is funny, if only because it is coming from VE. Any other alliance would be better, but you guys complained for months after you were forced to disband, and after your reformation. Although you had every right to complain, to see this come from you is the height of hypocrisy. I never thought I would see VE poke fun at another alliance's disbandment.Stay classy VE. This. I should expect it from you guys, however, given how well I knew you folks during post-GWII GUARD-VE admission talks. Its funny because I've spoken with CG before and expected this, however, its just too ironic coming from a community which experienced an exodus (which they continue to blame others for, as if they had no part) and claim complete victim status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 This.I should expect it from you guys, however, given how well I knew you folks during post-GWII GUARD-VE admission talks. Its funny because I've spoken with CG before and expected this, however, its just too ironic coming from a community which experienced an exodus (which they continue to blame others for, as if they had no part) and claim complete victim status. Please read the full thread, particularly my post a few pages back, before you parrot derogatory comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 sure, but whether or not an act is deliberate has nothing to do with state of mind... there's a long list of "traitors" out there who were under the impression that their actions would improve their nation/city/state/kingdom Well, you're getting better. The truth is you're both wrong, as mens rea does have to do with state of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneLOL Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I like this thread, quite a bit. VE <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Radec Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 You do know what alliance you are party to right? The one alliance responsible for more disbandments than all the rest merged together.You are an ironic little fellow. Please provide a list of every alliance the New Pacific Order has forced to disband. Those which are not eligible under these conditions are alliances that have disbanded rather than surrender(such as NAAC). I want the list to compromise alliances who had NO chance to surrender at all. Not even one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 This thread is still going? Christ, somebody throw a pie or something, we're bored to tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverCaffeinated Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Wow, how did I miss this thread! LOL! Thank you all for continuing to bump this thread up. Maybe we can get it stickied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch33kY Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 There is still so much to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 This turned out like all other threads. There're are two groups, 1 pro-OP and 1 anti-OP. This is how threads work. Group1: o/ Group2: DIE Group1: *makes a point* Group2: *makes a different point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Thread dies. Why must we always go in circles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 This turned out like all other threads.There're are two groups, 1 pro-OP and 1 anti-OP. This is how threads work. Group1: o/ Group2: DIE Group1: *makes a point* Group2: *makes a different point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Group1: *repeats point* Group2: *repeats point* Thread dies. Why must we always go in circles? You do realize where you are, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 You do realize where you are, right? Pfftt, what I say never applies to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 Pfftt, what I say never applies to me! Oh no, I was referring to just being on the OWF. Things that make sense don't belong here, take that somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted September 2, 2009 Report Share Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) Please provide a list of every alliance the New Pacific Order has forced to disband. Those which are not eligible under these conditions are alliances that have disbanded rather than surrender(such as NAAC). I want the list to compromise alliances who had NO chance to surrender at all. Not even one Why are they not eligible? because NPO surrender terms weer always merciful and just? Alliances that disbanded instead of choosing NPO surrender terms are eligible. Edited September 2, 2009 by Galapagos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Zenigata Posted September 3, 2009 Report Share Posted September 3, 2009 Manwe gave this thread a verbal warning on the previous page, and it doesn't see to have helped much. This has run it's course, iClose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts