Schattenmann Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Is it Possible say in a hypothetical scenario if NPO is oppressed, then Vox will once again stand up for principles and fight for NPO's freedom? That would all depend, wouldn't it? Vox stood up when no one else would, if no one stands up for long enough in such a hypothetical, then it wouldnt be unreasonable to expect the appearance of a new "Xov" movement. I don't think anyone could say if it would be called Vox POpuli, or have much of the same membership. I know a thing or two about betrayal. I don't think it's betrayal.One of the things we always professed to fight for is the freedom of choice, the freedom of us all to make our own decisions and not face permanent consequences for daring to try new things. That freedom naturally extends into the realm of the absurd, the ridiculous, and the idiotic. Anyone who was truly with Vox is certainly free to reside with NPO, but they'll never find a home there. My former comrade-in-arms has put it quite well."Yes, but no." Quite. Given that just about every alliance was part of the "Hegemony" at one time or another clearly no on who ever was in Vox should join any alliance whatsoever. I think that's why we made our own after I think he was referring to the people who were in Vox. Let's face it, if a former Vox member joining the NPO is betrayal, then it would be the other former Vox members they would be betraying. Since none of us former Vox members feel betrayed, it's obviously not betrayal in the slightest.. Yeah. I don't feel bretrayed. Confused, sure. Disagree, yeah. But Fran's AA is not really a sticking point for me any more than ChairmanHal or Starfox joining Valhalla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I tried to join to see what they were like, but they were all like "lolno." So I voted Yes, because even though I wanted to join, I assume they didn't let me so I wouldn't betray Vox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 I tried to join to see what they were like, but they were all like "lolno."So I voted Yes, because even though I wanted to join, I assume they didn't let me so I wouldn't betray Vox. To be fair, you did try to join while they were still pretty pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 To be fair, you did try to join while they were still pretty pissed. That's true I guess. But I was gone for a while D: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 Not to mention that I am not attempting to smear or defame anything, I'm merely asking for clarification on what Vox's expressed goals were... You know, if at this stage of the game you still haven't figured this out you need to take your ball and go home. Lost cause. I don't think anyone in history has been more loud or clear in expressing their goals. Well, except maybe Diabeetus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litha Riddle Posted September 19, 2009 Report Share Posted September 19, 2009 You know, if at this stage of the game you still haven't figured this out you need to take your ball and go home. Lost cause. I don't think anyone in history has been more loud or clear in expressing their goals.Well, except maybe Diabeetus. Or you know, you could chill out and realise that you disbanded a while ago and that people uninvolved wouldn't remember your goals that well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireandthepassion Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) Or you know, you could chill out and realise that you disbanded a while ago and that people uninvolved wouldn't remember your goals that well. It's hard to forget what could be seen as a successful revolution to some. You can claim to say that Vox disbanded so long ago, but it really wasn't that long ago especially at the political pace Bob moves at now. It should still be common knowledge now, or if you believe the hegemonic twist that Vox was only out to destroy, that Vox was an alliance founded on the premise of returning the NPO back to the fundamental philosophy of Francoism. [ooc]Obligatory, Francoism is whatever Vladimir says it is.[/ooc] Edited September 21, 2009 by Fireandthepassion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litha Riddle Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 It's hard to forget what could be seen as a successful revolution to some. You can claim to say that Vox disbanded so long ago, but it really wasn't that long ago especially at the political pace Bob moves at now. It should still be common knowledge now, or if you believe the hegemonic twist that Vox was only out to destroy, that Vox was an alliance founded on the premise of returning the NPO back to the fundamental philosophy of Francoism. [ooc]Obligatory, Francoism is whatever Vladimir says it is.[/ooc] Well I'll be honest in that I never paid that much attention to Vox or their goals, since most just seemed to hate us. And at the time I was barely active. So its not too much to assume that not everyone will be that intimately aware of them or their goals. And my last post was more an attempt to move away from throwing out insults. Since as of yet I have never said a cross word to Doitzel and see no reason why he should be so angry at me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I can only boggle at people who think the disbandment of Vox was "long ago." I know there is a crisis of short attention span, but really. As to the poll question, I actually agree with Starfox' answer on the first page. That was not a misprint. Expect news reports on the amazing cold front in hell to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerius Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Since we're talking about my good friend Fran, I will say that her reasons are acceptable and understandable in a sense, though I do not agree with them. This I have told her. Rather than giving a long-winded explanation I'll simply quote Schattenmann, who's said it very well. From what I can glean off conversations with Fran, she believes that alliances that made up the Karma coalition have now positioned themselves as the oppressors that NPO once were; therefore, as a fighter against oppression, in Francesca's mind the place to be now is NPO.Despite this reasoning, unfortunately, I must agree with my colleague Starfox. While the individuals within NPO may be cool froods that I enjoy working with on specific issues, it is far too soon to start preaching the good news of the reformed Pacifica. At this point in time, NPO can only do what it's allowed to do, when NPO is allowed to do whatever it wants to do at terms' end, then is the time when we will see what changes have occurred there. Joining them now as some sort of statement against Karma is a fruitless endeavour. I hope and believe that NPO will have re-thought its path by then, otherwise I wouldn't work with them. To stonewall them without giving them a chance would be a betrayal of my involvement in Vox in my mind. Vox Populi fought for people who were oppressed without cause, or who were never given a second chance; that meant fighting against allies of NPO and NPO. Karma fought a defensive war--regardless of whether the dominoes were lined up before NPO pushed over the first one unwittingly--and the results of that war are all reationary to its causes. Not until former-Karma AAs begin organizing against innocents is there a reason to start a "war" against them. If a former Vox member's enlistment at NPO is not a betrayal, it's at least misguided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) Since we're talking about my good friend Fran, I will say that her reasons are acceptable and understandable in a sense, though I do not agree with them. This I have told her. Rather than giving a long-winded explanation I'll simply quote Schattenmann, who's said it very well. Thank you, Kent. I shall convert you one day. Not to mention you won't be able to wriggle out of debate with Vladimir forever. With regard to this discussion..... I'm sure most people in Planet Bob have changed their viewpoint regarding some issue or another in their lives. If you haven't, perhaps you should experiment with the idea. Edited September 21, 2009 by Francesca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Thank you, Kent. I shall convert you one day. Not to mention you won't be able to wriggle out of debate with Vladimir forever. With regard to this discussion..... I'm sure most people in Planet Bob have changed their viewpoint regarding some issue or another in their lives. If you haven't, perhaps you should experiment with the idea. If Vladimir is lacking in good debate partners, Im always game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armybound09 Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Is it wrong to just want something better? maybe he just wants to better himself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 The lack of a 'The past is past and who gives a flying frack' reason is disappointing. Anyways, voted no as that sort of thing (where a person joins a side they were previously against) happens all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 (edited) I don't like it. Though, in all honesty, it is NPOs prerogative who they accept into their alliance. If I was leading the NPO, I wouldn't touch people who had actively sought its destruction and some even spying on allies etc... snitches get stitches. Edited September 22, 2009 by DogeWilliam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armybound09 Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 oh i just asked a question, im wasnt taken sides. It was a simple question asking why is it wrong for someone to want something better. but seeing as this is none of my business lol imma pick my tongue up and throw it over my shoulder and shut up :-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted September 22, 2009 Report Share Posted September 22, 2009 (edited) I don't know if it can be called betrayal as there's really no one being betrayed (save for maybe the individual fooling/betraying themselves or maybe a betrayal of the idea of Vox Populi), but it does indeed speak to the utter confusion and/or retardedness of some people. That or the tendency to waffle. Edited September 22, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 There's really some good reasons for this to happen. First, it's possible that they can see the Order coming back around to what is 'right' (let's not debate what that is). Where else can you help with that but from the inside? After all, one could argue that it was the goal of Vox all along, to restore Pacifica to the path of righteousness, with step one being to serve up the humble pie, and step two being to start building things better. The other reason: seriously, people were leaving the Order for Vox back in the day. Why's it wrong when it happens in reverse? To think that the NPO-VP stream is one way is rather dishonest, intellectually. Besides, one issue was the whole 'forgiveness', not holding eternal grudges and so forth. What better way to do that than to actually admit one's enemies? Makes it easier to aim the mind control ray, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Ozujsko Posted September 24, 2009 Report Share Posted September 24, 2009 The other reason: seriously, people were leaving the Order for Vox back in the day. Why's it wrong when it happens in reverse? To think that the NPO-VP stream is one way is rather dishonest, intellectually. Err, no. Folks leaving the NPO for VP were "rebelling" for a number of different factors. Membership in Vox put them in direct opposition to the NPO's action and all that it stood for. It's wrong when it happens in reverse because it is a betrayal of principles based on the hypothetical notion that NPO has some sense of justice/fairness. It's not intellectually dishonest. It's common sense. 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.