Pro-Piracy Act of 2009

[Hell Scream]

Ok so we can expect an imminent ODN-GOONS MDP which you'll !@#$% out of again?

You're right history will repeat itself. ODN will continue to !@#$% out of wars, although one day you won't be able to slime your way out of a situation and I'll be a happy man to witness your joke of an alliance get the come-uppence they've managed to evade through somehow castrating themselves numerous times.

Thanks for calling 360 people jokes in 1 post. Civility at it's best, eh?

We're no longer the old ODN. I appreciate your tries to drag me into an argument, though.

Edit: typo

Edited September 22, 2009 by Hell Scream

[Eden Taylor]

As much as GOONs like to say "nah, nah, we don't care about your opinions; our fingers are in our ears," we dissenters don't really care how much you folks make fun of us.

To be blunt, its plainly obvious that many of your lulz-responses are motivated by, A) an attempt to gain attention, B) an attempt to gain acceptance/approval by your like-minded brethren, and C) an attempt to circumvent any rational discussion with childish belittlement.

Keep 'em coming, if you didn't want the attention this announcement about aiding unaligned wouldn't have been made.

Politely, however, I would like to know what would happen if an unaligned raider was financed by GOONs and the targeted nation applied for membership in another alliance; GOONs would cease aiding attacks against that applicant, correct?

Because that is what much of this dissent boils down to.

Again you have quoted me without actually responding to anything I say (not to mention you don't even fully quote me but pull something out in order to attempt a possibly relevant response that just falls on its face). Please stop doing this, since when I see myself being responded to I assume someone is going to actually apply their mental faculties to verbalizing an articulate and logical rebuttal instead of using it as another attempt to do I can't even fathom what anymore.

[LegendoftheSkies]

Wow, 41 pages.

Way to go GOONS, you're actually generating some interest around here.

[Owned-You]

Because it would be the first war started over something meaningless and the first treaties dropped in preparation for war?

E: Keep in mind that those rumors were well before GLoF's government posted their official position and policy clarification and while several GLoF members were threatening to "burn down" GOONS while stating that they spoke for GLoF.

Just to answer your question, no it wouldn't. However, based upon your statement you've made a gross misinterpretation of the character quality GLOF and ourselves have if you are to believe we'd drop treaties over something as trivial as this matter. We don't sign documents unless we intend to stick to them to the death, Polaris herself is well aware of it. We burned along-side her when we could have easily taken the easy road out years back. But, I don't want to stray too far off-topic so I'll drop the matter; unless you want to continue it.

With all that said, I can understand your position of preparing for a potential conflict. It's your job to be protect your house, just as it my own to protect Vidia. My initial statement was intended for those whom continue to believe a conflict may be brewing, or in fact would like to see one occur. To reiterate what I said earlier to those misinformed or misguided individuals; a conflict will not happen nor would it be conceivable.

[LJ Scott]

Thanks for calling 360 people jokes in 1 post. Civility at it's best, eh?

We're no longer the old ODN. I appreciate your tries to drag me into an argument, though.

You're welcome.

"...no longer the old ODN." I get the feeling I've heard that before, and yet you can't seem to help but revert back to old ways I guess. Mmmm delicious irony.

[Bower3aj]

Because it would be the first war started over something meaningless and the first treaties dropped in preparation for war?

E: Keep in mind that those rumors were well before GLoF's government posted their official position and policy clarification and while several GLoF members were threatening to "burn down" GOONS while stating that they spoke for GLoF.

le sigh... really? May I refresh your memory as to what the 3 Masons that have posted in here have said

My opinion is my own, as being a founder and having achieved the third Degree, I enjoy the right to speak as a Freemason and an individual; that liberty is afforded to all who sojourn on our path.

So why do you think you can tell me what I can say on the OWF?

If you're attempting to intimidate me its not a very pressing concern.

I am Bower... I speak for the nation of IXOYAE, I know it's difficult to get, but I am not my alliance, I am merely a cog in the greater system.

clarification: I speak for drunken state only and not the Mason's as a whole

I totally see where we said we spoke for the alliance.

but also:

Just to answer your question, no it wouldn't. However, based upon your statement you've made a gross misinterpretation of the character quality GLOF and ourselves have if you are to believe we'd drop treaties over something as trivial as this matter. We don't sign documents unless we intend to stick to them to the death, Polaris herself is well aware of it. We burned along-side her when we could have easily taken the easy road out years back. But, I don't want to stray too far off-topic so I'll drop the matter; unless you want to continue it.

With all that said, I can understand your position of preparing for a potential conflict. It's your job to be protect your house, just as it my own to protect Vidia. My initial statement was intended for those whom continue to believe a conflict may be brewing, or in fact would like to see one occur. To reiterate what I said earlier to those misinformed or misguided individuals; a conflict will not happen nor would it be conceivable.

Thanks to Owned-You again for trying to get the truth out there. It's really freaking hard to do.

I would like to add though that not only has NV burned for NpO, but the Lodge did as well, albeit indirectly.

[salithus]

le sigh... really? May I refresh your memory as to what the 3 Masons that have posted in here have said

Excuse me, I was going to leave it with Owned-You's concession, but since you want to keep rehashing this out, here is the exact quotation in question on these forums, typical of the rumors that reached me:

Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, for whatever reason (this includes your preposterous notion that victims who fight back belong on your ZI-list) and we will watch you burn.

And, if you are so naive as to think that my only source of information is these forums, well, good luck.

Edited September 22, 2009 by salithus

[ModusOperandi]

Excuse me, I was going to leave it with Owned-You's concession, but since you want to keep rehashing this out, here is the exact quotation in question on these forums, typical of the rumors that reached me:

And, if you are so naive as to think that my only source of information is these forums, well, good luck.

Yes, Salithus; I did say those words.

Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, for whatever reason (this includes your preposterous notion that victims who fight back belong on your ZI-list) and we will watch you burn.

I fail to see how those words are any different than any policy of any alliance, including your own.

One of you said that you checked our wiki and noticed I wasn't a government member, so I fail to see how you deign this to be the Lodge picking a fight; especially after speaking with the Council who explicitly stated, in a separate announcement even, that I am not a member of government.

So how should that statement have been made?

Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons and we will let you do that because we are push-overs.

You're dreaming if you think that is the way we, or other alliances, operate; everyone protects their own, that often includes unaligned who apply for membership and seek protection, it isn't as though every alliance in the Verse is going to let someone be raided because of this silly announcement.

Our Lodge has always been a defensive organization that will not change, there would only be a fight if you sought it and as others have already pointed out NV, NpO and GOONs take friendship pretty seriously; you will not goad us into war, not that I think that's what you want because I'm not saying that.

Simply respect our sovereignty and we will do so vice versa.

I personally believe, however, that this policy is an interesting can of worms since war by proxy against applicants will undoubtedly force unaligned to either support your endeavor or seek protection from it.

Those who seek protection from it, of course, will be protected from it.

[Il Impero Romano]

And, if you are so naive as to think that my only source of information is these forums, well, good luck.

Do you expect any other alliance would treat the matter differently?

For the record, I could care little about the policy itself, good read though.

[Doitzel]

I'm not sure how anyone has continued since HellScream entered the debate. I'll fight an uphill battle but sometimes you've got to cut your losses.

[King Srqt]

something people need to understand is that GOONS are a bit like a mirror. Polite posts towards us will generally get polite responses. Rude posts will get rude responses. Crying will get derisory laughter. Generally, you get out of GOONS what you put in, in terms of tone, and in this thread at least what a lot of people have put in is shrill and angry words.

Well you should not be surprised to be disrespected when you create an announcement that is disrespectful.

[General Scian]

I love GOONS for bringing interest to this game. But this policy is pretty stupid. At any rate... whatever you guys are fighting about.

[salithus]

:words:

The post you made was in direct response to this chain of posts:

also if glof accepted a nation that is at war with a goon member, and said nation is not under any zi punishment for past transgression the goons member would really have to peace out, then again this sort of a grey area and I am unsure how another alliance would deal with such a matter.

No, GLoF would be committing an act of war against GOONS. If they were to, instead, politely request that we not declare any new wars after the current ones expired because they had the intention of accepting the nation as a member at the end of the current wars, we would take it and our current relationship with GLoF into consideration. If you substituted, say, Umbrella for GLoF, you would get a "Oh hey, we can probably go ahead and peace out now because we like you." With GLoF though, they will get laughed off of our forums/IRC/et cetera. If they were insistent on pursuing their demands, we would activate our MDPs as necessary, since GLoF would be initiating a hostile action against GOONS.

To highlight your response again:

Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, for whatever reason (this includes your preposterous notion that victims who fight back belong on your ZI-list) and we will watch you burn.

Accepting a nation into your membership who is currently engaged in a war with GOONS is an act of war and you were threatening to commit that act if given the opportunity, and go to war with GOONS over it, hoping to destroy us, and did so speaking on behalf of GLoF. If that were the policy of every alliance, your alliance's leadership would not have felt the need to recant and clarify here that you will in no way try to accept nations into GLoF who are at war with GOONS nations (or any other nations for that matter).

[Bower3aj]

Modus already addressed this but I feel that I can add something

You said

Excuse me, I was going to leave it with Owned-You's concession, but since you want to keep rehashing this out, here is the exact quotation in question on these forums, typical of the rumors that reached me:

And, if you are so naive as to think that my only source of information is these forums, well, good luck.

and no, I doubt that is your only source of information, but you apparently need to get new sources.

anyway, you also say you were going to leave it with Owned-You's concession... then let me point this out to you

Just to answer your question, no it wouldn't. However, based upon your statement you've made a gross misinterpretation of the character quality GLOF and ourselves have if you are to believe we'd drop treaties over something as trivial as this matter. We don't sign documents unless we intend to stick to them to the death, Polaris herself is well aware of it. We burned along-side her when we could have easily taken the easy road out years back. But, I don't want to stray too far off-topic so I'll drop the matter; unless you want to continue it.

With all that said, I can understand your position of preparing for a potential conflict. It's your job to be protect your house, just as it my own to protect Vidia. My initial statement was intended for those whom continue to believe a conflict may be brewing, or in fact would like to see one occur. To reiterate what I said earlier to those misinformed or misguided individuals; a conflict will not happen nor would it be conceivable.

and for full effect:

Modus:

Attack any new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons or refuse to cease attacks against a new member of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons, for whatever reason (this includes your preposterous notion that victims who fight back belong on your ZI-list) and we will watch you burn.

Owned-You:

It's your job to be protect your house, just as it my own to protect Vidia.

now for real easy to understand terms

Modus:

we protect our brothers

Owned-You:

we protect our brothers

Case closed... thank you

[Emperor Stranger]

I can't say I support this. Raiding is certainly never a good thing, in my opinion.

[SiCkO]

its great to see that GOONS hasnt changed

salithus, if you had any sense, you would cut your losses like doitzel said, no point defending it since they cant force you to stop.

i personally disapprove of raiding but its your alliance and i will respect that.

[ModusOperandi]

Accepting a nation into your membership who is currently engaged in a war with GOONS is an act of war and you were threatening to commit that act if given the opportunity, and go to war with GOONS over it, hoping to destroy us, and did so speaking on behalf of GLoF. If that were the policy of every alliance, your alliance's leadership would not have felt the need to recant and clarify here that you will in no way try to accept nations into GLoF who are at war with GOONS nations (or any other nations for that matter).

Thanks Bower.

In addition Salithus, attacking another alliance's member is the same as aiding an attack against another alliance's member; the Cyberverse has always been this way.

And I think you need to look at our alliance announcement again, we don't tolerate interference in our membership process but we don't adversely go out strong-arming peeps; we are sovereign, so long as you stay away from us we'll stay away from you. This isn't hard to figure out.

[Biazt]

Thanks Bower.

In addition Salithus, attacking another alliance's member is the same as aiding an attack against another alliance's member; the Cyberverse has always been this way.

And I think you need to look at our alliance announcement again, we don't tolerate interference in our membership process but we don't adversely go out strong-arming peeps; we are sovereign, so long as you stay away from us we'll stay away from you. This isn't hard to figure out.

Honestly just about every post of yours in the last 10 pages has contained questions that were asked and answered at least 2 or 3 times already in this thread.

[nippy]

salithus, if you had any sense, you would cut your losses like doitzel said, no point defending it since they cant force you to stop.

No, Doitzel said there was no point defending it after HellScream appeared in the thread. I can only assume he's being sarcastic.

[Doitzel]

Was I that unclear?

What I meant was that I wasn't going to bother continuing to argue against this policy once HellScream joined the same "side" of the argument as it made the situation hopeless for me.

[nippy]

Was I that unclear?

What I meant was that I wasn't going to bother continuing to argue against this policy once HellScream joined the same "side" of the argument as it made the situation hopeless for me.

In that case, my respect for you has been retained...maybe even increased.

[lamuella]

In addition Salithus, attacking another alliance's member is the same as aiding an attack against another alliance's member; the Cyberverse has always been this way.

and how do these things compare to accepting a new member with a pre-existing war against another alliance?

[Beauty]

Id like to remind people that this GOONS is not the old GOONS.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Rotavele

[Bower3aj]

and how do these things compare to accepting a new member with a pre-existing war against another alliance?

le sigh... ok, again... having to repeat ourselves on this issue is getting semi-annoying. no where, does the Grand Lodge of Freemasons say this. Hell, I don't even think MO says it. I think you are twisting that one quote into something that it's not. He said attack a new member of ours and burn, right after he says attack a member of ours and burn... notice how in both cases they are MEMBERS of the Lodge, and seeing as how the Lodge does not accept nations at war with an alliance it would be pretty hard (also known as impossible) for your question to even happen. Now would you please stop slandering our name by accusing us of things that are baseless?

[nippy]

le sigh... ok, again... having to repeat ourselves on this issue is getting semi-annoying. no where, does the Grand Lodge of Freemasons say this. Hell, I don't even think MO says it. I think you are twisting that one quote into something that it's not. He said attack a new member of ours and burn, right after he says attack a member of ours and burn... notice how in both cases they are MEMBERS of the Lodge, and seeing as how the Lodge does not accept nations at war with an alliance it would be pretty hard (also known as impossible) for your question to even happen. Now would you please stop slandering our name by accusing us of things that are baseless?

Wow, you're really clever with the le sigh thing...it really adds to every post you make.

Actually, no, I'm just distracted by all the sighing going on. If having to repeat yourself is getting annoying, by all means, stop posting 'le sigh' or 'sigh' or any variation of this useless demonstration of emotional fluff.